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 <rost...@goodmis.org> wrote: > On Wed, 4 Oct 2017 14:42:33 +0200 > Greg KH <gre...@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
