+ George On Sat, 18 Apr 2020, Julien Grall wrote: > Hi, > > On 18/04/2020 00:12, Stefano Stabellini wrote: > > On Fri, 17 Apr 2020, Julien Grall wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > The title claim this is a resend, but this is actually not the latest > > > version of this patch. Can you explain why you decided to use v1 > > > rather than v2? > > > > Because v2 added a printk for every read, and I thought you only wanted > > the range fix. Also, the printk is not a "warn once" so after the > > discussion where it became apparent that the register can be read many > > times, it sounded undesirable. > > You previously mentionned that you will use Peng's patch. From my perspective, > this meant you are using the latest version of a patch not a previous one. > > So this was a bit of a surprised to me. > > > > > Nonetheless I don't have a strong preference between the two. If you > > prefer v2 it is here: > > > > https://marc.info/?l=xen-devel&m=157440872522065 > I understand the "warn" issue but we did agree with it back then. I am ok to > drop it. However, may I request to be more forthcoming in your patch in the > future? > > For instance in this case, this a link to the original patch and an > explanation why you selected v1 would have been really useful.
That's a good point, I can add it. So, for clarity, I'll keep v1 but expand on the commit message to say that we kept v1 to avoid spamming the console. > > Do you need me to resent it? If it is OK for you as-is, you can give > > your ack here, and I'll go ahead and commit it. > > > > > > > On Fri, 17 Apr 2020 at 23:16, Stefano Stabellini <sstabell...@kernel.org> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > From: Peng Fan <peng....@nxp.com> > > > > > > > > The end should be GICD_ISACTIVERN not GICD_ISACTIVER. > > > > > > > > (See https://marc.info/?l=xen-devel&m=158527653730795 for a discussion > > > > on > > > > what it would take to implement GICD_ISACTIVER/GICD_ICACTIVER properly.) > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Peng Fan <peng....@nxp.com> > > > > Signed-off-by: Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabell...@xilinx.com> > > > > Reviewed-by: Stefano Stabellini <sstabell...@kernel.org> > > > > > > I don't think you can be at the same time an author of the patch and a > > > reviewer. Otherwise, I could review my own patch ;). > > > > Yeah ... that was not the intention. I changed the commit message so I > > had to add my signed-off-by for copyright reasons. > > At the same time I > > reviewed it even before changing the commit message so I added the > > reviewed-by. I agree it looks kind of weird. > > I don't feel this should go as-is. It is not clear in the commit message the > changes you did and could lead confusion once merged. One may think you > reviewed your own patch. > > In general when I tweak a commit message, I will not add my signed-off-by but > just add [julieng: Tweak commit message] above my reviewed-by/acked-by tag. > > Alternatively, you can remove your reviewed-by and let another maintainer > reviewing it. > > I will let you decide your preference and resend the patch appropriately. The Linux policy on Signed-off-by is really strict: basically any time a person touches a patch, even just to commit the patch (no changes to it), they add a Signed-off-by. So it is common there and other projects to have both Signed-off-by and Reviewed-by from the same individual. For instance on Linux: commit b2a84de2a2deb76a6a51609845341f508c518c03 Reported-by: Linus Torvalds <torva...@linux-foundation.org> Acked-by: Linus Torvalds <torva...@linux-foundation.org> Reviewed-by: Catalin Marinas <catalin.mari...@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <w...@kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Catalin Marinas <catalin.mari...@arm.com> commit 33e45234987ea3ed4b05fc512f4441696478f12d Reviewed-by: Kees Cook <keesc...@chromium.org> Reviewed-by: Catalin Marinas <catalin.mari...@arm.com> Reviewed-by: Vincenzo Frascino <vincenzo.frasc...@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Kristina Martsenko <kristina.martse...@arm.com> [Amit: Modified secondary cores key structure, comments] Signed-off-by: Amit Daniel Kachhap <amit.kach...@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Catalin Marinas <catalin.mari...@arm.com> On QEMU: commit 22cd0945b8429f818a2d90f06f02bb526bfb319d Signed-off-by: Francisco Iglesias <frasse.igles...@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Edgar E. Iglesias <edgar.igles...@xilinx.com> Reviewed-by: Edgar E. Iglesias <edgar.igles...@xilinx.com> Message-id: 20180503214201.29082-2-frasse.igles...@gmail.com Signed-off-by: Peter Maydell <peter.mayd...@linaro.org> commit 133d23b3ad1be53105b9950fb18858cf059f2da6 Signed-off-by: Alistair Francis <alistair.fran...@xilinx.com> Reviewed-by: Edgar E. Iglesias <edgar.igles...@xilinx.com> Signed-off-by: Edgar E. Iglesias <edgar.igles...@xilinx.com> Your suggestion of adding something between brackets like: [stefano: update commit message] is good because it clarifies things and I'd like to do that. But still, I think it would require the addition of my Signed-off-by. At the same time it doesn't look like we want to avoiding adding a Reviewed-by because a reviewer made a change to the commit message too? Of course, for this patch, I am happy to drop my Reviewed-by and resend and I'll do that. But I think it would be worth clarifying this point at the project level. George, do we or the LinuxFoundation have a policy on whether we can or cannot have reviewed-by and signed-off-by from the same individual?