From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail138.messagelabs.com (mail138.messagelabs.com [216.82.249.35]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A1A86B005C for ; Thu, 3 Sep 2009 17:04:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from zps78.corp.google.com (zps78.corp.google.com [172.25.146.78]) by smtp-out.google.com with ESMTP id n83L3wrX003137 for ; Thu, 3 Sep 2009 14:03:58 -0700 Received: from pxi7 (pxi7.prod.google.com [10.243.27.7]) by zps78.corp.google.com with ESMTP id n83L3soI021041 for ; Thu, 3 Sep 2009 14:03:56 -0700 Received: by pxi7 with SMTP id 7so186516pxi.1 for ; Thu, 03 Sep 2009 14:03:56 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2009 14:03:55 -0700 (PDT) From: David Rientjes Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/6] hugetlb: introduce alloc_nodemask_of_node In-Reply-To: <1252010988.6029.194.camel@useless.americas.hpqcorp.net> Message-ID: References: <20090828160314.11080.18541.sendpatchset@localhost.localdomain> <20090828160338.11080.51282.sendpatchset@localhost.localdomain> <20090901144932.GB7548@csn.ul.ie> <1251823334.4164.2.camel@useless.americas.hpqcorp.net> <1252010988.6029.194.camel@useless.americas.hpqcorp.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: Lee Schermerhorn Cc: Mel Gorman , linux-mm@kvack.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, Nishanth Aravamudan , linux-numa@vger.kernel.org, Adam Litke , Andy Whitcroft , eric.whitney@hp.com List-ID: On Thu, 3 Sep 2009, Lee Schermerhorn wrote: > > I've seen the issue about the signed-off-by/reviewed-by/acked-by order > > come up before. I've always put my signed-off-by line last whenever > > proposing patches because it shows a clear order in who gathered those > > lines when submitting to -mm, for example. If I write > > > > Cc: Mel Gorman > > Signed-off-by: David Rientjes > > > > it is clear that I cc'd Mel on the initial proposal. If it is the other > > way around, for example, > > > > Signed-off-by: David Rientjes > > Cc: Mel Gorman > > Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton... > > > > then it indicates Andrew added the cc when merging into -mm. That's more > > relevant when such a line is acked-by or reviewed-by since it is now > > possible to determine who received such acknowledgement from the > > individual and is responsible for correctly relaying it in the patch > > submission. > > > > If it's done this way, it indicates that whoever is signing off the patch > > is responsible for everything above it. The type of line (signed-off-by, > > reviewed-by, acked-by) is enough of an indication about the development > > history of the patch, I believe, and it doesn't require specific ordering > > to communicate (and the first line having to be a signed-off-by line isn't > > really important, it doesn't replace the From: line). > > > > It also appears to be how both Linus merges his own patches with Cc's. > > ??? > Not sure what's confusing about this, sorry. You order your acked-by/reviewed-by/signed-off-by lines just like I have for years and I don't think it needs to be changed. It shows a clear history of who did what in the path from original developer -> maintainer -> Linus. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org