Re: [PATCH v2 1/6] serial: 8250: Store to lsr_save_flags after lsr read - Uwe Kleine-König

From: "Uwe Kleine-König" <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>
Cc: "Jonathan Corbet" <corbet@lwn.net>,
	"Ilpo Järvinen" <ilpo.jarvinen@linux.intel.com>,
	"Greg KH" <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
	linux-serial <linux-serial@vger.kernel.org>,
	"Jiri Slaby" <jirislaby@kernel.org>,
	"Matwey V. Kornilov" <matwey@sai.msu.ru>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/6] serial: 8250: Store to lsr_save_flags after lsr read
Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2022 12:32:29 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20220607103229.f4hniwkcyfwlgem2@pengutronix.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAHp75VcUBOcz_UAx9tVER8cBb8h8NF+NivUH00-B39wwH6ObUQ@mail.gmail.com>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2377 bytes --]

Hello,

On Tue, Jun 07, 2022 at 12:09:39PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > > > I believe you haven't preserved the authorship that way (since From
> > > > > line is different), but since you have done non-trivial changes and
> > > > > Uwe is okay with them, the straightforward tag chain would be (with
> > > > > your authorship implied):
> > > > > Co-developed-by: Uwe
> > > > > SoB: Uwe
> > > > > SoB: yours
> > > >
> > > > I don't care much, but IMHO the initial set of tags made sense to me.
> > >
> > > > It
> > > > has my S-o-b because the change is (somewhat) taken from me and it has
> > > > my ack because the modification looked good to me.
> > >
> > > According to
> > > https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/submitting-patches.html#when-to-use-acked-by-cc-and-co-developed-by
> > > the SoB already implies that you developed that, but Ack if not. It
> > > also clarifies Co-developed-by for cases like this.

Reading that by the letter, it doesn't say you must not use Ack if there
is a S-o-b.

	If a person was not directly involved in the preparation or
	handling of a patch but wishes to signify and record their
	approval of it then they can ask to have an Acked-by: line added
	to the patch’s changelog.

It's "If" and not "Iff". Not sure if that is intended?!

> > That's unintuitive (and wrong) in my opinion.
> 
> I have the opposite opinion.
> 
> > For me, Acked-by is a
> > confirmation of the respective person, that the patch in question is ok.
> > If I take a hunk of a random reverted patch and add the S-o-b of the big
> > patch's author, can I really assume the original author "acks" the
> > result? I would expect that in most cases they don't. (And if they do,
> > there is no way to record it, because the usual way of adding an Ack is
> > blocked as there is already a S-o-b?)
> 
> It's very logical to me. If you allowed (by not NAKing) the other
> developer to use your SoB you imply Ack for every change they made.

So you assume that you notice each patch with your S-o-b in time to send
a NAK. I don't claim that for me and I would be surprised if a major
part of the kernel contributors did.

Best regards
Uwe

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           | Uwe Kleine-König            |
Industrial Linux Solutions                 | https://www.pengutronix.de/ |

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]