Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S933001Ab3FQNH5 (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 Jun 2013 09:07:57 -0400 Received: from merlin.infradead.org ([205.233.59.134]:43239 "EHLO merlin.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932791Ab3FQNH4 (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 Jun 2013 09:07:56 -0400 Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2013 15:07:38 +0200 From: Peter Zijlstra To: Alex Shi Cc: Paul Turner , Ingo Molnar , Thomas Gleixner , Andrew Morton , Borislav Petkov , Namhyung Kim , Mike Galbraith , Morten Rasmussen , Vincent Guittot , Preeti U Murthy , Viresh Kumar , LKML , Mel Gorman , Rik van Riel , Michael Wang , Jason Low , Changlong Xie , sgruszka@redhat.com, =?iso-8859-1?Q?Fr=E9d=E9ric?= Weisbecker Subject: Re: [patch v8 3/9] sched: set initial value of runnable avg for new forked task Message-ID: <20130617130738.GW3204@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> References: <1370589652-24549-1-git-send-email-alex.shi@intel.com> <1370589652-24549-4-git-send-email-alex.shi@intel.com> <51BB25BC.9070500@intel.com> <20130617092146.GM3204@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> <51BEDD9E.600@intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <51BEDD9E.600@intel.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2012-12-30) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2177 Lines: 63 On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 05:57:50PM +0800, Alex Shi wrote: > On 06/17/2013 05:21 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > >> > > >> > and make forking balancing imbalance since incorrect load_avg_contrib. > >> > > >> > Further more, Morten Rasmussen notice some tasks were not launched at > >> > once after created. So Paul and Peter suggest giving a start value for > >> > new task runnable avg time same as sched_slice(). > >> > > >> > Signed-off-by: Alex Shi > >> > Signed-off-by: Paul Turner > > Should you all go read: Documentation/SubmittingPatches , or am I > > somehow confused on the SoB rules? > > has this should been right, if Paul had handed in the modified patch as > he suggested? :) > > Sorry for stupid, I still don't know what's SoB rule? Right, so it depends on who actually wrote the patch; the only case that's really hard is when a patch is fully co-authored -- agile dev nonsense like, 4 hands 1 keyboard situation or so. Typically there's 1 somebody who did most work on a particular patch; that someone would be Author/From and have first SoB. If thereafter the patch becomes part of an aggregate work; he who compiles can add another SoB; possibly with an extra [] line describing 'smallish' changes that were needed to the initial patch to make it fit the aggregate. Example: From: PJT foo patch implements foo because bar; note the fubar detail. SoB: PJT [alex@intel: changed ponies into horses to make it fit] SoB: Alex The other case is where a 'simple' modification of the initial patch simply won't do; you need to change the core idea of the patch or similar. In this case I've seen things like: From: Alex foo patch implements foo because bar; note the fubar detail. Based-on-patch-by: PJT SoB: Alex This isn't actually in the submitting patches document and I'm not sure it should be; although some clarification for these weird cases might be useful. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/