From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from lists.xenproject.org (lists.xenproject.org [192.237.175.120]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 71E6EC433EF for ; Fri, 26 Nov 2021 09:04:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by lists.xenproject.org with outflank-mailman.232417.402934 (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1mqX8p-0004bv-66; Fri, 26 Nov 2021 09:03:35 +0000 X-Outflank-Mailman: Message body and most headers restored to incoming version Received: by outflank-mailman (output) from mailman id 232417.402934; Fri, 26 Nov 2021 09:03:35 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.xenproject.org) by lists.xenproject.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1mqX8p-0004bo-2M; Fri, 26 Nov 2021 09:03:35 +0000 Received: by outflank-mailman (input) for mailman id 232417; Fri, 26 Nov 2021 09:03:33 +0000 Received: from mail.xenproject.org ([104.130.215.37]) by lists.xenproject.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1mqX8n-0004bi-Bv for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Fri, 26 Nov 2021 09:03:33 +0000 Received: from xenbits.xenproject.org ([104.239.192.120]) by mail.xenproject.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1mqX8j-0002vP-QB; Fri, 26 Nov 2021 09:03:29 +0000 Received: from home.octic.net ([81.187.162.82] helo=[10.0.1.193]) by xenbits.xenproject.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1mqX8j-00028u-HM; Fri, 26 Nov 2021 09:03:29 +0000 X-BeenThere: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org List-Id: Xen developer discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xenproject.org Precedence: list Sender: "Xen-devel" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=xen.org; s=20200302mail; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:In-Reply-To:From: References:Cc:To:Subject:MIME-Version:Date:Message-ID; bh=SNivb7ZRKcoDAkET0wJ+uoadWTWNJrW1fwZH36Mns6M=; b=xkytt+2dyFz5IyDwJX3wId3mEX yjK8w9ymmTG0V5mw/v4U2t43bW6L3rzkD/ODsrwbOUrW7p40bYLqYAQ3g9Z01QlIuui23vbbj+34m 2qE4+1joBIe/Q0lE1Tz6ux/M7jFL82HReP4hA0iFGY7HKkgfEE96HVNjoJlh6/LjrMSw=; Message-ID: Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2021 09:03:26 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.3.2 Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/7] xz: add fall-through comments to a switch statement To: Jan Beulich Cc: Andrew Cooper , George Dunlap , Ian Jackson , Stefano Stabellini , Wei Liu , "xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org" References: <0ed245fa-58a7-a5f6-b82e-48f9ed0b6970@suse.com> <0c0e67f3-5e0a-f047-ca09-1cf078e6b094@suse.com> <71ef250c-be92-2b2f-0f07-ce32c17d8050@xen.org> From: Julien Grall In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Jan, On 26/11/2021 07:37, Jan Beulich wrote: > On 25.11.2021 18:13, Julien Grall wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On 25/11/2021 17:03, Jan Beulich wrote: >>> On 25.11.2021 17:54, Julien Grall wrote: >>>> On 25/11/2021 16:49, Julien Grall wrote: >>>>> On 19/11/2021 10:21, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>>>> From: Lasse Collin >>>>>> >>>>>> It's good style. I was also told that GCC 7 is more strict and might >>>>>> give a warning when such comments are missing. >>>>>> >>>>>> Suggested-by: Andrei Borzenkov >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Lasse Collin >>>> >>>> Actually, any reason why there are some signed-off-by missing? >>> >>> I often keep the author's, but drop ones which clearly got there only >>> because of the path a patch has taken through trees. >> >> This might be clear for you. For me, as a reviewer, I have to do extra >> work to check whether you keeped the relevant signed-off-by. >> >>> These aren't >>> relevant imo when pulling over the change; >> >> They are technically part of the "chain of approval". > > But the Linux chain of approval is precisely what is of no interest to > us. We need to approve the change ourselves; Linux having had it > approved is merely a data point. I can understand this point of view. But as I wrote above, a reviewer as to do extra work to check you correctly propagated the signed-off-by (see more below). > >>> I could as well take the >>> email submission as my basis, after all, where just the single S-o-b >>> would be there. >> >> That's a fair point. That said, you took the commit-as-is from linus.git > > How would you be able to tell? That's easy. You wrote in your commit message: [Linux commit: 5a244f48ecbbd03a11eb84819c5c599db81823ee] That's indicating you used the Linux commit rather than the one on the ML. So I will tend to diff the commit and the what's different. > >> so I think we ought to keep them. > > I disagree. And I'd like to remain consistent with what I've been doing > in the past. I actually tried to find the original submission but failed. I didn't look for long though... Anyway, I think it would save time for everyone (you had to manually delete signed-off-by after all) if you just copy the commit (including all the signed-off-by) message as-is. Cheers, -- Julien Grall