lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Jul]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC v5 2/9] sched/deadline: improve the tracking of active utilization
On Mon, 24 Jul 2017 11:11:30 +0200
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:

> On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 09:54:54AM +0200, Luca Abeni wrote:
> > Hi Peter,
> >
> > I put this change in a local tree together with other fixes / cleanups
> > I plan to submit in the next weeks. Should I send it together with the
> > other patches, or are you going to apply it separately?
>
> Posting them in a series is fine; it is customary to put independent
> things first such that they will not get stuck after the larger changes.
>
> > In the first case, what is the correct authorship / SOB chain (I ask
> > because I keep getting this wrong every time :)
>
> Yes, this is a 'fun' case :-) I'd just merge the change into your patch
> introducing it and forget I 'contributed' the name change.

I think this patch is independent from the other patches I have in my
tree... So, I will go for the solution you describe below.


Thanks,
Luca

>
> For larger patches you could do something like (in your email body):
>
>
> From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
>
> Changelog goes here...
>
> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
> Signed-off-by: Luca...
> ---
>
> $PATCH
>
>
> Which says this patch is from me, carried by you, and then I'll stick
> another SoB on to indicated I took it back. Its a bit weird, but we've
> done it before.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-07-25 08:47    [W:0.071 / U:0.388 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site