Re: [PATCH -next 0/6] Patches for v6.17

[Neeraj upadhyay]

Hi,

On Sun, Jul 20, 2025 at 10:01 AM Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

...

> There seems to be a couple of issues in the S-O-B chains of commits listed
> below (in rcu/next):
>
>  * dcf1668449c9 ("rcu: Document GP init vs hotplug-scan ordering requirements")
>  * bb1c373934db ("rcu: Document concurrent quiescent state reporting for offline CPUs")
>
> They have a "Co-developed-by:" tag without a corresponding "Signed-off-by:"
> tag [1].
>
> Or, if the contribution is too minor to have a "Signed-off-by:",
> then a "Suggested-by:" tag with a "Link:" to the relevant message should
> suffice.
>
> I have no idea which approach suits better in each commit above.
>
> [1]: Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst
>      section "When to use Acked-by:, Cc:, and Co-developed-by:"
>

Thanks for reviewing this! I will fix the tags.


> Quoting relevant paragraph:
>
>   Co-developed-by: states that the patch was co-created by multiple developers;
>   it is used to give attribution to co-authors (in addition to the author
>   attributed by the From: tag) when several people work on a single patch.  Since
>   Co-developed-by: denotes authorship, every Co-developed-by: must be immediately
>   followed by a Signed-off-by: of the associated co-author.  Standard sign-off
>   procedure applies, i.e. the ordering of Signed-off-by: tags should reflect the
>   chronological history of the patch insofar as possible, regardless of whether
>   the author is attributed via From: or Co-developed-by:.  Notably, the last
>   Signed-off-by: must always be that of the developer submitting the patch.
>
> Side note:
>   scripts/checkpatch.pl would have complained about those missing
>   Signed-off-by: tags.
>
> >
> >  .../Data-Structures/Data-Structures.rst       |  32 +++++
> >  .../RCU/Design/Requirements/Requirements.rst  | 128 ++++++++++++++++++
>
> I'm seeing sub-optimal uses of reST markups in Requirements.rst from kernel
> documentation stand point.
>
> I'm going to submit a patch or two to improve them, but I can't promise when.
> They will likely be only cosmetic cleanups and I'm OK with it upstreamed as
> it is.
>

Thanks!


- Neeraj