lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Oct]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [kernel-hardening] [RFC V2 0/6] add more kernel pointer filter options

As Greg stated that he helped author the patch, you can ignore this
email. Sorry for the noise.

-- Steve

On Wed, 4 Oct 2017 09:28:15 -0400
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> wrote:

> On Wed, 4 Oct 2017 14:42:33 +0200
> Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> > > Is correct protocol for me to add your Signed-off-by tag to each patch from this RFC? Or is the
> > > protocol for you to add the tag yourself when the real version is posted?
> >
> > You can add my signed-off-by to your new patches,
>
> I was always told that one should never add someone else's
> signed-off-by, because that's not what it means.
>
> I was told that this would be an Acked-by or Reviewed-by.
>
> From Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst:
>
> ====
> 12) When to use Acked-by: and Cc:
> ---------------------------------
>
> The Signed-off-by: tag indicates that the signer was involved in the
> development of the patch, or that he/she was in the patch's delivery path.
>
> 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.
>
> Acked-by: is often used by the maintainer of the affected code when that
> maintainer neither contributed to nor forwarded the patch.
>
> Acked-by: is not as formal as Signed-off-by:. It is a record that the acker
> has at least reviewed the patch and has indicated acceptance. Hence patch
> mergers will sometimes manually convert an acker's "yep, looks good to me"
> into an Acked-by: (but note that it is usually better to ask for an
> explicit ack).
> ====
>
> -- Steve

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-10-04 15:32    [W:0.102 / U:16.748 seconds]
©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site