From: Ard Biesheuvel Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v6 04/23] zinc: ChaCha20 x86_64 implementation Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2018 10:00:29 +0200 Message-ID: References: <20180925145622.29959-1-Jason@zx2c4.com> <20180925145622.29959-5-Jason@zx2c4.com> <20180929075601.GA11115@zn.tnic> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Cc: "Jason A. Donenfeld" , LKML , Netdev , Linux Crypto Mailing List , David Miller , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Samuel Neves , Andrew Lutomirski , Jean-Philippe Aumasson , Andy Polyakov , Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , X86 ML To: Borislav Petkov Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20180929075601.GA11115@zn.tnic> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-crypto.vger.kernel.org On 29 September 2018 at 09:56, Borislav Petkov wrote: > 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. > Note that this is the author of the *patch* not necessarily the author of the code. Anyone is free to submit patches adding code authored by others as long as the author has made it available under a suitable license, and this is actually the whole point of the S-o-B: you are stating to the next guy that the code included in your patch was made available to you under a compatible license.