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 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS,T_DKIM_INVALID, URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_MUTT autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C63B3C6778A for ; Tue, 24 Jul 2018 09:06:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 602AA20875 for ; Tue, 24 Jul 2018 09:06:57 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (2048-bit key) header.d=infradead.org header.i=@infradead.org header.b="tQqSFAnO" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 602AA20875 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=infradead.org Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2388254AbeGXKMW (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Jul 2018 06:12:22 -0400 Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([198.137.202.133]:60284 "EHLO bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S2388183AbeGXKMW (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Jul 2018 06:12:22 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=infradead.org; s=bombadil.20170209; h=In-Reply-To:Content-Type:MIME-Version :References:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:Sender:Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date: Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id: List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=LnRtPCzjtqPyA1bIeiKzRLggHqhK6KPMwRNG3gUGTm8=; b=tQqSFAnOfY1OUdwkRe7RBQ6A7 JF1KsEYmTVxeCrZbWowh0LelvaZ6bsBX42dCPcD2YC2dzyVYGuHZalfqSUY3svwZ4C7Nd7PkxXxbD J88rMOE4ea6T0kX9PBNJ/QDCqsCOh896QYIRSyB7kkGF55myfBjR7mav2wHi8ZokGHOvAidLc0QSt 0NIswmRsVkGUh+7yHXbWwJaufWUUJtmSfPJMmo7ChHPot6oY8/oCb2vZRrqkiNnhX0LtfdA0yKO7e jMpiwRKkiPy1/RjUPn6bY5GRyV3MV057eQ9MkaQIbhl0NOFj/INYLMnlDT8+Sg1UgGoArlFM+DDwc MVeEGaPWg==; Received: from j217100.upc-j.chello.nl ([24.132.217.100] helo=hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtpsa (Exim 4.90_1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1fhtHR-0005kv-RD; Tue, 24 Jul 2018 09:06:54 +0000 Received: by hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 6FAC520275F47; Tue, 24 Jul 2018 11:06:51 +0200 (CEST) Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2018 11:06:51 +0200 From: Peter Zijlstra To: jiang.biao2@zte.com.cn Cc: chen.lin130@zte.com.cn, mingo@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, zhong.weidong@zte.com.cn, tan.hu@zte.com.cn.cn, cheng.lin130@zte.com.cn, tan.hu@zte.com.cn Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/numa: do not balance tasks onto isolated cpus Message-ID: <20180724090651.GK2494@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> References: <20180723084031.GX2494@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> <201807240911372861670@zte.com.cn> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <201807240911372861670@zte.com.cn> User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.0 (2018-05-17) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 09:11:37AM +0800, jiang.biao2@zte.com.cn wrote: > >> Signed-off-by: Cheng Lin > >> Signed-off-by: Tan Hu > >> Signed-off-by: Jiang Biao > > > >This SoB chain is invalid. > Mm, we don't quite understand what the *Signed-off-by* precisely means, > Does it only mean DCO(developer certificate of origin)? > As we understood, multiple SoBs could be used to indicate co-authors. > If SoB only means DCO, how can the patches reflect co-authors? It specifically does not allow for co-authorship. I think there's a Co-Authored-by: tag invented by some people (check the git logs) but especially for such a dinky little patch, I wouldn't bother. Maybe have your co-workers review the patch or something.