On Thu, Nov 03, 2011 at 09:59:02AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-11-03 at 06:29 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 03, 2011 at 12:14:20PM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > > On Wed, Nov 02, 2011 at 08:48:54PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Nov 02, 2011 at 01:30:38PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > > From: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>
> > > > > 
> > > > > A common debug_lockdep_rcu_enabled() function is used to check whether
> > > > > RCU lockdep splats should be reported, but srcu_read_lock() does not
> > > > > use it.  This commit therefore brings srcu_read_lock_held() up to date.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> > > > 
> > > > Just how signed off does this patch need to be? ;)
> > 
> > If you have sufficient patience to scroll past the Signed-off-by's
> > to see the patch, then there clearly are not enough.  ;-)
> > 
> > > Dunno but I feel uncomfortable now with that strange feeling I'm walking
> > > on the street with two Paul holding my hand on each side.
> > 
> > I did catch one of these, but missed the other.  Here is the history:
> > 
> > o	Paul wrote the patch.
> > 
> > o	Frederic reworked the patches that this one depended on,
> > 	and then resent the patch.
> > 
> > o	Paul did "git am -s" on the series that Frederic sent,
> > 	which added the extra Signed-off-by.
> > 
> > It is not clear to me what the Signed-off-by chain should look like in
> > this case.  My default action would be to remove my second Signed-off-by.
> 
> The author should be you (change the From: to you not Frederic), and
> then the first SoB would be Frederic, and yours at the end as you
> committed it.
> 
> I would also state in the change log what Frederic did to the original
> patch.

Fair enough!

							Thanx, Paul