Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20220226220639.1173594-1-Jason@zx2c4.com> <20220226220639.1173594-3-Jason@zx2c4.com>
 <CAMj1kXGRjdjbedQTU8ab+Q4jJPnN7nxc8_4QNiG3R7JE=zk-wA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHmME9rPd8Nu8Q0+R6B4Bz-caKpq5SSvLaiKdwXcyNHY8Ebfqg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAMj1kXEwsyPcoTvK6PZyA5L3q9u_dd_wXUiyHw7TtPM5LecP7g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAMj1kXHAeqrPjMZi_VD6fYWXatV5UUy5N3ZbtZf=SaDpN3GPVQ@mail.gmail.com> <b023481d-7a25-2343-63d9-0a34874f2ba8@amazon.com>
In-Reply-To: <b023481d-7a25-2343-63d9-0a34874f2ba8@amazon.com>
From:   Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>
Date:   Sun, 27 Feb 2022 12:43:38 +0100
Message-ID: <CAMj1kXEcM1Q=utgfj1b+NGGH=+dcjdC6OhDhCqJhR8ZNXbUM2A@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 2/3] ACPI: allow longer device IDs
To:     Alexander Graf <graf@amazon.com>
Cc:     "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@zx2c4.com>,
        Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
        Linux Crypto Mailing List <linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org>,
        ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Sun, 27 Feb 2022 at 12:39, Alexander Graf <graf@amazon.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 27.02.22 11:47, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> > On Sun, 27 Feb 2022 at 11:30, Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org> wrote:
> >> On Sun, 27 Feb 2022 at 11:03, Jason A. Donenfeld <Jason@zx2c4.com> wrote:
> >>> On 2/27/22, Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org> wrote:
> >>>> On Sat, 26 Feb 2022 at 23:07, Jason A. Donenfeld <Jason@zx2c4.com> wrote:
> >>>>> From: Alexander Graf <graf@amazon.com>
> >>>>>
> >>>> Please don't invent patch authors like that. Alex's patch that started
> >>>> this discussion was completely different.
> >>> Considering the investigative side ("why won't the _CID match?") and
> >>> most the commit message were Alex's, and that those things comprise
> >>> 95% of what this patch is, and that the code change itself isn't even
> >>> part of anything Turing complete, I most certainly did not feel
> >>> comfortable stripping Alex's authorship. Instead I added myself as a
> >>> co-author at the bottom. When in doubt, err on the side of crediting
> >>> others. Alex also took a look at this patch, I am under the impression
> >>> of at least, before it went out. Let's minimize the paperwork
> >>> policing, okay? I think it'd make for a much more pleasant space here.
> > ...
> >> Please stop with the ad hominems in response to criticism on factual
> >> aspects of your code. Putting someone else's authorship on code they
> >> did not write is not cool, and pointing that out is *not* what is
> >> making this space unpleasant.
> >> And 'paperwork policing' is sadly an important aspect of a high
> >> profile open source project such as Linux.
> >>
> > I typed this before reading your message on IRC, which reads:
> >
> > "Alex looked at that patch before i sent it out and did not object to
> > me keeping his authorship. I wouldn't have sent it out otherwise."
> >
> > and so I stand corrected if this is true. But please, next time,
> > please be more clear about these things.
>
>
> Yes, he did reach out to me on a separate channel and I told him to go
> for it :). Sorry if I created some confusion with that.
>

No, my bad. But in my defence, everyone on the original thread knows
that this single oneline change was suggested by Jason, not you, and
so seeing him posting it as your patch did confuse me a little.