Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Tue, 24 Jul 2018 11:06:51 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To:     jiang.biao2@zte.com.cn
Cc:     chen.lin130@zte.com.cn, mingo@redhat.com,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, zhong.weidong@zte.com.cn,
        tan.hu@zte.com.cn.cn, cheng.lin130@zte.com.cn, tan.hu@zte.com.cn
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/numa: do not balance tasks onto isolated cpus
Message-ID: <20180724090651.GK2494@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20180723084031.GX2494@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <201807240911372861670@zte.com.cn>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <201807240911372861670@zte.com.cn>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.0 (2018-05-17)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 09:11:37AM +0800, jiang.biao2@zte.com.cn wrote:

> >> Signed-off-by: Cheng Lin <cheng.lin130@zte.com.cn>
> >> Signed-off-by: Tan Hu <tan.hu@zte.com.cn>
> >> Signed-off-by: Jiang Biao <jiang.biao2@zte.com.cn>
> > 
> >This SoB chain is invalid.

> Mm, we don't quite understand what the *Signed-off-by* precisely means,
> Does it only mean DCO(developer certificate of origin)?
> As we understood, multiple SoBs could be used to indicate co-authors.
> If SoB only means DCO, how can the patches reflect co-authors?

It specifically does not allow for co-authorship. I think there's a
Co-Authored-by: tag invented by some people (check the git logs) but
especially for such a dinky little patch, I wouldn't bother. Maybe have
your co-workers review the patch or something.