Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Tue, 24 Aug 2021 15:47:21 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To:     Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>
Cc:     Zhouyi Zhou <zhouzhouyi@gmail.com>, mingo@redhat.com,
        will@kernel.org, longman@redhat.com, paulmck@kernel.org,
        josh@joshtriplett.org, rostedt@goodmis.org,
        mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com, jiangshanlai@gmail.com,
        joel@joelfernandes.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        rcu@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH][RFC] lockdep: improve comments in wait-type checks
Message-ID: <YST4aWMArEBsKW07@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20210810210319.6564-1-zhouzhouyi@gmail.com>
 <YRM5heBfgNtEGvoC@boqun-archlinux>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <YRM5heBfgNtEGvoC@boqun-archlinux>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Aug 11, 2021 at 10:44:21AM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Wed, Aug 11, 2021 at 05:03:19AM +0800, Zhouyi Zhou wrote:
> > Hi Peter,
> >   I think comments in wait-type checks may benifit from some comments
> > improvement.
> 
> Thanks for looking into this!
> 
> Even for an RFC patch, it's better that you write a proper commit log,
> and note that you can put all this background information right after
> the "---" line, if you think that will help people review it.
> 
> >   I recklessly add Paul to signed-off-by, because I asked his opinion
> > about comment in rcu_read_lock_bh part.
> > 
> 
> Probably a Suggested-by will suffice, but I leave that to Paul ;-)

This, also since Paul never actually touched the patch.

> > Thanks a lot
> > Zhouyi
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Zhouyi Zhou <zhouzhouyi@gmail.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org>
> 
> Please make you the last one in the "Signed-off-by" list, see
> Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst:
> 
> "Notably, the last Signed-off-by: must always be that of the developer
> submitting the patch."

The first sob should be that of the author, and given that's the same
person as the submitter in this case, he's got a problem at his hands
;-)