On Wed, Aug 06, 2014 at 05:48:03AM +0000, Lichunhe wrote: > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: Ben Pfaff [mailto:b...@nicira.com] > >Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2014 4:52 AM > >To: Lichunhe > >Cc: dev@openvswitch.org; Qianhuibin (Huibin QIAN, Euler); Wuyunfei > >Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] ovs-lib.in:Add process name checking when start ovs > >service > > > >On Mon, Aug 04, 2014 at 03:19:16PM +0800, lichu...@huawei.com wrote: > >> From: Chunhe Li <lichu...@huawei.com> > >> > >> Only check wheather is daemon pid exist is not enough, becasue the pid > >> which store in pidfile maybe assign to another process by OS. > >> So it will checking failed for pid exist, but the starting process > >> which own the pid is not the ovs daemon. > >> > > > >The changes from the previous version should be put after the --- so > >that they do not make it into the change log: > >> patch v2: > >> using /proc/$pid/comm check process name, instead of pidof. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Chunhe Li <lichu...@huawei.com> > >> Signed-off-by: Wunyunfei <wuyun...@huawei.com> > >> Signed-off-by: Ben Pfaff <b...@nicira.com> > > > >Thanks for v2. > > > >Why is there a sign-off by Wunyunfei <wuyun...@huawei.com>? (How did > >this person contribute?) > > > > He reported this bug, and written the first patch. Should I don't use singed > off, instead of reported by.
OK, so he wrote the patch, then you picked it up and modified it? Then that is an appropriate use of Signed-off-by. Thanks, Ben. _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
