From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [198.137.202.133]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C1C834C7D for ; Wed, 31 Jan 2024 00:47:27 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=198.137.202.133 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1706662049; cv=none; b=qdOtlFCRpZMLsDUobWmkYJaZ6oy63Q7Sip6/UsEX41pX1Ak5v6nMofhiSBjs8o7t3IJPlJJicqdBFk99Tmll/y3nCcxm4REJuT7bQVlqKwMOBtzpMSlmm4ay74D4nwtvhiDfOJ31BA1vx+begiUx3xO2aAWQt6jhKdnYWwbTF/k= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1706662049; c=relaxed/simple; bh=ninTgaiN3nmFAHxl8tpds0wBfwAOd1pBJBheBbLfgh8=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:Cc:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=r+ZQVjz7FvpC74FE6AqUR7MVbAeqMpOkUTHl1CgOlq9lIYGGjOdsjh+gCQQIhHcpZOXdXWwYkG9omsMy6DE17273u5B0FZUiJrArI2RNFxkiWYptqst7p7DZhfwV3Ijf9wCb7J1+VFEDHHMAI7h5ITJb4cjMMjfR/2Do0OHDqpQ= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=infradead.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=infradead.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=infradead.org header.i=@infradead.org header.b=bdkupmkA; arc=none smtp.client-ip=198.137.202.133 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=infradead.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=infradead.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=infradead.org header.i=@infradead.org header.b="bdkupmkA" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=infradead.org; s=bombadil.20210309; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-Type:In-Reply-To:From:References:Cc:To:Subject:MIME-Version:Date: Message-ID:Sender:Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description; bh=+zdfb/cHl3dXnmcyuQ8UW73rXI4wnC1EyuTSXPxPV7s=; b=bdkupmkAXZ7EQQm9xuTfiKhxh2 TSgdaJbIN7c3XgwH6266OsGHN8FlfTMPPrUseBIL1w1DwdWxh1WDJX3DN0WDCBGRVgd8YjEGlXcVu vH8EBibQUe5fz3ZssmI0w9LKzpkLY7Terk0aF97xTwjMtYdNof4rWthhLGWocMk2Ru1hFAm7H2MBp Cs8/w0OqJF20zjb2vmfljZwpvIaiM5K313picfil+dQfzTI2FZvkDG/VRRQMjzS2DsxrElGf9YOqd txhsTOvVT+HOWqXnZRR1Lt8cWZZ0qKii+/fZHVNtL/waSgEvZVsYjnwE+eY0G6ztZVsmCuCZ+umWf 8zQ+RQxQ==; Received: from [50.53.50.0] (helo=[192.168.254.15]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtpsa (Exim 4.97.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1rUylD-000000013mc-0wGu; Wed, 31 Jan 2024 00:47:27 +0000 Message-ID: <118a560d-9e5f-4bc4-b0d2-ee0b3d6a5120@infradead.org> Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2024 16:47:26 -0800 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: commit tag order vs. "b4 am" Content-Language: en-US To: Tony Luck , x86@kernel.org Cc: Konstantin Ryabitsev , Reinette Chatre , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: From: Randy Dunlap In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 1/30/24 14:34, Tony Luck wrote: > Reinette noticed that v14 of my resctrl/SNC patch series[1] did not adhere > to the tag order proscribed in Documentation/process/maintainer-tip.rst > Specifically my "Signed-off-by:" was now the last tag, instead of > appearing before the "Reviewed-by:" and "Tested-by" tags as it had in > v13. > > A little digging showed that my tag had been moved to the end by "b4 am" > when I used it to pick up some additonal tags. > > An e-mail discussion with Konstantin ensued to determine if this was > a bug. Konstantin said: > > This is the intended behaviour, because b4 follows the chain-of-custody > procedure. If we encounter a Signed-off-by trailer matching the identity of > the user preparing the series, we move it to the bottom to indicate that the > chain-of-custody boundary has moved to include the code review trailers > received after the initial submission. > > https://lore.kernel.org/tools/20221031165842.vxr4kp6h7qnkc53l@meerkat.local/ > > Basically, the "Signed-off-by" trailer is special because it indicates that > everything above it is the responsibility of the person doing the sign-off. If > we kept your Signed-off-by in the original spot, then it wouldn't be clear who > collected and applied the trailers. I can't find "chain of custody" anywhere in Documentation/process/, nor a specification or example of this ordering. Where did this b4 requirement come from? > Question: Do the TIP maintainers agree with Konstantin's opinion that > the Signed-off-by: includes all the tags applied prior? If so, this > should be called out in Documentation/process/maintainer-tip.rst > > > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240126223837.21835-1-tony.luck@intel.com/ > thanks. -- #Randy