From: Borislav Petkov Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v6 04/23] zinc: ChaCha20 x86_64 implementation Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2018 09:56:01 +0200 Message-ID: <20180929075601.GA11115@zn.tnic> References: <20180925145622.29959-1-Jason@zx2c4.com> <20180925145622.29959-5-Jason@zx2c4.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: Ard Biesheuvel , LKML , Netdev , Linux Crypto Mailing List , David Miller , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Samuel Neves , Andrew Lutomirski , Jean-Philippe Aumasson , Andy Polyakov , Thomas Gleixner , mingo@redhat.com, X86 ML To: "Jason A. Donenfeld" Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-crypto.vger.kernel.org On Sat, Sep 29, 2018 at 04:01:53AM +0200, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote: > I was wondering about the ordering of these, actually. I've seen s-o-b > on top and s-o-b on bottom of the cc list in lots of commits and > haven't yet divined the One True Position. Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst section 12, first sentence. The SOB chain needs to clearly express the path of the patch from author(s) to the upstream kernel. -- Regards/Gruss, Boris. Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply.