From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1765642AbXFRS43 (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Jun 2007 14:56:29 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1764685AbXFRS4V (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Jun 2007 14:56:21 -0400 Received: from pasmtpb.tele.dk ([80.160.77.98]:52414 "EHLO pasmtpB.tele.dk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1760916AbXFRS4U (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Jun 2007 14:56:20 -0400 Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2007 20:57:04 +0200 From: Sam Ravnborg To: Christoph Hellwig , Dan Williams , Andrew Morton , johannes@sipsolutions.net, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, hs4233@mail.mn-solutions.de, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Linus Torvalds Subject: Re: libertas (private) ioctls vs. nl80211 Message-ID: <20070618185704.GA25340@uranus.ravnborg.org> References: <1181757483.29767.99.camel@johannes.berg> <20070614170901.GA13384@infradead.org> <20070614103836.23b07a72.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20070614181307.GA16856@infradead.org> <1182188327.22149.5.camel@xo-28-0B-88.localdomain> <20070618184436.GC17479@infradead.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20070618184436.GC17479@infradead.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 07:44:36PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 01:38:47PM -0400, Dan Williams wrote: > > On Thu, 2007-06-14 at 19:13 +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > > > I suspect that the probability of your proposal succeeding would be increased > > > > if you could prepare a patch... > > > > Applied to upstream-fixes branch of libertas-2.6 which is destined for > > 2.6.22; I hope you don't mind that I just added the Signed-off-by for > > you. > > Adding a signed off line for a patch that purely removes codes seems > rather pointless to me, but feel free to add it if you care. THe Signed-off-by: document the path a given patch have taken on its way to the final acceptance and does not have any significance whatsoever about the content of the patch. Anyone on the Signed-of-by route may change the patch (and I often do so) without further notice. So judging if a Signed-off-by: should be added or not based on patch content is wrong. It is a patch anyway. That said the legal(in a loose definition of legal) rationale may be of much less significance when trivially removing some code. But we use the same mechanish even to cover spelling corrections. Sam