From: Abel Vesa Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v6 04/23] zinc: ChaCha20 x86_64 implementation Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2018 11:27:29 +0300 Message-ID: <20180929082729.GA22116@ryzen> References: <20180925145622.29959-1-Jason@zx2c4.com> <20180925145622.29959-5-Jason@zx2c4.com> <20180929075601.GA11115@zn.tnic> <20180929081118.GB11115@zn.tnic> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Ard Biesheuvel , "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: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20180929081118.GB11115@zn.tnic> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-crypto.vger.kernel.org On 18-09-29 10:11:18, Borislav Petkov wrote: > On Sat, Sep 29, 2018 at 10:00:29AM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > > 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. > > ... and the actual author could be named with Originally-by or > Co-Developed-by:, and even in free text in the commit message. Or you could just put the original author as the first S-o-b and then another (second) S-o-b line where you put yourself as a submitter. AFAIK, that's how people usually do it. > > But the correct SOB chain denoting who handled the patch on its way up, > is important. > > -- > Regards/Gruss, > Boris. > > Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply.