From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Return-Path: Message-ID: <1540397093.66186.13.camel@acm.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 00/11] Zoned block device support improvements From: Bart Van Assche To: "Martin K. Petersen" , Mike Snitzer Cc: Jens Axboe , Damien Le Moal , linux-block@vger.kernel.org, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, dm-devel@redhat.com, Christoph Hellwig , Matias Bjorling Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2018 09:04:53 -0700 In-Reply-To: References: <20181012100850.23316-1-damien.lemoal@wdc.com> <78778e22-9c5e-99d0-ef5c-85e04d03a4b7@kernel.dk> <20181024150344.GB13487@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-7" Mime-Version: 1.0 List-ID: On Wed, 2018-10-24 at 11:37 -0400, Martin K. Petersen wrote: +AD4 Mike, +AD4 +AD4 +AD4 +AD4 You keep mentioning this, but I don't recall ever seeing anything to +AD4 +AD4 +AD4 that effect. The rest of the kernel appears to be either arbitrary +AD4 +AD4 +AD4 ordering or favoring author SoB as the first tag. +AD4 +AD4 +AD4 +AD4 I've always felt the proper order is how Jens likes it too (all dm +AD4 +AD4 commits from me follow that order). +AD4 +AD4 That's fine, I don't have any particular preference. And I don't have +AD4 any issue with you guys sticking to a certain ordering in your +AD4 respective subsystems. I occasionally shuffle tags when I commit things +AD4 in SCSI too. +AD4 +AD4 I just think it should be properly documented if there is a preferred +AD4 way to order things... When I tried to look up documentation for this I couldn't find anything under the Documentation directory. Maybe it's there but I didn't look carefully enough. All I could find on the web is e-mails from Linus in which he explains that the order of Signed-off-by's should match the chain of authorship. Bart. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Bart Van Assche Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 00/11] Zoned block device support improvements Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2018 09:04:53 -0700 Message-ID: <1540397093.66186.13.camel@acm.org> References: <20181012100850.23316-1-damien.lemoal@wdc.com> <78778e22-9c5e-99d0-ef5c-85e04d03a4b7@kernel.dk> <20181024150344.GB13487@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: dm-devel-bounces@redhat.com Errors-To: dm-devel-bounces@redhat.com To: "Martin K. Petersen" , Mike Snitzer Cc: Jens Axboe , Damien Le Moal , linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, linux-block@vger.kernel.org, dm-devel@redhat.com, Christoph Hellwig , Matias Bjorling List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 2018-10-24 at 11:37 -0400, Martin K. Petersen wrote: > Mike, > > > > You keep mentioning this, but I don't recall ever seeing anything to > > > that effect. The rest of the kernel appears to be either arbitrary > > > ordering or favoring author SoB as the first tag. > > > > I've always felt the proper order is how Jens likes it too (all dm > > commits from me follow that order). > > That's fine, I don't have any particular preference. And I don't have > any issue with you guys sticking to a certain ordering in your > respective subsystems. I occasionally shuffle tags when I commit things > in SCSI too. > > I just think it should be properly documented if there is a preferred > way to order things... When I tried to look up documentation for this I couldn't find anything under the Documentation directory. Maybe it's there but I didn't look carefully enough. All I could find on the web is e-mails from Linus in which he explains that the order of Signed-off-by's should match the chain of authorship. Bart.