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;
From:   "Fabio M. De Francesco" <fmdefrancesco@gmail.com>
To:     Alison Schofield <alison.schofield@intel.com>
Cc:     raghuhack78@gmail.com, linux-cxl@vger.kernel.org,
        ira.weiny@intel.com, bwidawsk@kernel.org, dan.j.williams@intel.com,
        vishal.l.verma@intel.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] cxl/mbox: Remove redundant dev_err() after failed mem
 alloc
Date:   Thu, 04 May 2023 12:46:37 +0200
Message-ID: <2755196.BEx9A2HvPv@suse>
In-Reply-To: <ZFLaG8jHHXmRp67w@aschofie-mobl2>
References: <20230428012235.119333-1-raghuhack78@gmail.com> <3235466.44csPzL39Z@suse>
 <ZFLaG8jHHXmRp67w@aschofie-mobl2>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Precedence: bulk

On gioved=EC 4 maggio 2023 00:03:07 CEST Alison Schofield wrote:
> On Wed, May 03, 2023 at 08:32:37PM +0200, Fabio wrote:
> > On venerd=EC 28 aprile 2023 03:22:34 CEST Raghu H wrote:

[...]

> > >=20
> > > Signed-off-by: Raghu H <raghuhack78@gmail.com>
> >=20
> > Is "Raghu H" the name you sign legal documents with?
>=20
> Fabio,
> Rather than asking a specific question to determine if this is a
> valid SOB, let's just point folks to the documentation to figure
> it out themselves.
> I'm aware that the 'sign legal documents' test
> has been used in the past, but kernel only actually requires a
> known identity.
>=20
> https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/v4.17/process/submitting-patches.html#sig=
n-you
> r-work-the-developer-s-certificate-of-origin
> https://github.com/cncf/foundation/blob/659fd32c86dc/dco-guidelines.md

Alison,

Thanks for your suggestions.

I have just a couple of questions about this issue...

1) How do we know that the "real name", which the Linux official documentat=
ion=20
refers to, should be interpreted in accordance to the document pointed by t=
he=20
second link you provided?=20

I mean, how can we be sure that the official documentation should be=20
interpreted according to the second link, since it doesn't even cite that=20
document from CNCF?=20

Can you provide links to documents / LKML's threads that state agreement of=
=20
our Community about the "relaxed" interpretation by CNCF?

2) It looks that some maintainers (e.g., Greg K-H) still interpret "[] usin=
g=20
your real name (sorry, no pseudonyms or anonymous contributions.)" in a=20
"strict" and "common" sense.=20

Can you remember that Greg refused all patches from "Kloudifold" and why? I=
f=20
not, please take a look at the following two questions / objections from Gr=
eg:=20
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-staging/ZCQkPr6t8IOvF6bk@kroah.com/ and=20
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-staging/ZBCjK2BXhfiFooeO@kroah.com/.

It seems that this issue it's not yet settled.=20
Am I overlooking something?

Again thanks,

=46abio

> > If not, please send a new version signed-off-by your full legal name.
> > Otherwise... sorry for the noise.
> >=20
> > Thanks,
> >=20
> > Fabio