From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753212Ab1LFSab (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 Dec 2011 13:30:31 -0500 Received: from mx3.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.1.138]:34306 "EHLO mx3.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751934Ab1LFSa3 (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 Dec 2011 13:30:29 -0500 Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2011 19:28:47 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar To: Ben Hutchings Cc: Alan Cox , Peter Zijlstra , mingo@redhat.com, hpa@zytor.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, tglx@linutronix.de, linux-tip-commits@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [tip:core/locking] lockdep, rtmutex, bug: Show taint flags on error Message-ID: <20111206182847.GB12094@elte.hu> References: <1319773015.6759.30.camel@deadeye> <1323185640.7454.269.camel@deadeye> <1323193731.32012.81.camel@twins> <20111206175558.3215907c@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> <20111206175919.GA5386@elte.hu> <20111206181715.GG3366@decadent.org.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20111206181715.GG3366@decadent.org.uk> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-ELTE-SpamScore: -2.0 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-2.0 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.3.1 -2.0 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Ben Hutchings wrote: > > What Peter did was rather sensible: he split a patch that > > did two things into two and applied one standalone, > > uncontroversial half of it and kept the part of the part of > > the changelog that related to that change. > [...] > > I can accept that if the change from my submission is > commented in the commit message. (I sometimes do that with > other people's patches.) But this was modified without > comment. That was not what you requested though: > > > > > If you disagree with a patch, do not silently drop > > > > > parts of it. I demand that you remove my > > > > > 'Signed-off-by' as this is not the change I submitted. What happened is that you did two things in a single patch and Peter applied the uncontroversial, unrelated bits in full. > Giving credit for authorship is important, but it is also > important not to say someone is the sole author of something > when they aren't and haven't approved the subsequent changes > (cf. Alan Smithee). It's all hunks submitted by you, you are the only author. He did not modify your changes - you submitted several changes. You are actually the sole author of those changes in the commit. Peter only split up your original patch - he was actually being very constructive and 100% helpful with upstreaming your debug printout changes - which makes your original objection doubly offensive. Thanks, Ingo