Pass the trap number causing the call to die() to the die notification
handler chain.
From: Jan Beulich <[email protected]>
(actual patch attached)
On Tue, 8 Nov 2005, Jan Beulich wrote:
> Pass the trap number causing the call to die() to the die notification
> handler chain.
>
> From: Jan Beulich <[email protected]>
>
> (actual patch attached)
I understand that some people need to use attachment for
patches. In some locations I have that problem myself.
However, the From: in the body above isn't needed.
Or if it's needed, it should be part of the patch.
And the patch (attachment) also contains From:, but it's missing
a Signed-off-by: line.
Please read/study Documentation/SubmittingPatches, esp. the
section on "12) The canonical patch format".
Anyone: what are acceptable method(s) for using
attachments for patches?
Would no email body be OK? (I.e., everything in the attachment?)
Everything being "the canonical patch format."
Thanks,
--
~Randy
>And the patch (attachment) also contains From:, but it's missing
>a Signed-off-by: line.
I looked at many ChangeLog entries (which supposedly get created from
the abstract), and by far not all of them have the author listed both as
From: and Singed-Off-By:, which made me think that either of the two
should be sufficient (and I really can't see why the author information
needs to appear twice).
Jan
On Tue, 8 Nov 2005, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >And the patch (attachment) also contains From:, but it's missing
> >a Signed-off-by: line.
>
> I looked at many ChangeLog entries (which supposedly get created from
> the abstract), and by far not all of them have the author listed both as
> From: and Singed-Off-By:, which made me think that either of the two
> should be sufficient (and I really can't see why the author information
> needs to appear twice).
Tools can determined the From: part from your email, so it's
often safe to omit that part.
The S-o-b part is required...
--
~Randy
Jan Beulich wrote:
>I looked at many ChangeLog entries (which supposedly get created from
>the abstract), and by far not all of them have the author listed both as
>From: and Singed-Off-By:, which made me think that either of the two
>should be sufficient (and I really can't see why the author information
>needs to appear twice).
>
>
The difference between From and Signed-of-by, is like knowing who owns
the car, as receiving the keys to the car
(hope it made any sense :)
>Jan
>
>
Richard
>>> "Randy.Dunlap" <[email protected]> 08.11.05 18:13:28 >>>
>On Tue, 8 Nov 2005, Jan Beulich wrote:
>
>> >And the patch (attachment) also contains From:, but it's missing
>> >a Signed-off-by: line.
>>
>> I looked at many ChangeLog entries (which supposedly get created
from
>> the abstract), and by far not all of them have the author listed
both as
>> From: and Singed-Off-By:, which made me think that either of the
two
>> should be sufficient (and I really can't see why the author
information
>> needs to appear twice).
>
>Tools can determined the From: part from your email, so it's
>often safe to omit that part.
>
>The S-o-b part is required...
Strange. Andi Kleen specifically asked me to add From: to my patches...
And I still can't see why the author of a patch wouldn't implicitly sign
off on it.
Jan
On St 09-11-05 09:20:25, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> "Randy.Dunlap" <[email protected]> 08.11.05 18:13:28 >>>
> >On Tue, 8 Nov 2005, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >
> >> >And the patch (attachment) also contains From:, but it's missing
> >> >a Signed-off-by: line.
> >>
> >> I looked at many ChangeLog entries (which supposedly get created
> from
> >> the abstract), and by far not all of them have the author listed
> both as
> >> From: and Singed-Off-By:, which made me think that either of the
> two
> >> should be sufficient (and I really can't see why the author
> information
> >> needs to appear twice).
> >
> >Tools can determined the From: part from your email, so it's
> >often safe to omit that part.
> >
> >The S-o-b part is required...
>
> Strange. Andi Kleen specifically asked me to add From: to my patches...
> And I still can't see why the author of a patch wouldn't implicitly sign
> off on it.
Read Documentation/SubmittingPatches. s-o-b: means that patch is GPL.
Pavel
--
Thanks, Sharp!