Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 21 Nov 2013 16:54:12 -0800 | From | Stephen Boyd <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH V4 1/2] genirq: Add an accessor for IRQ_PER_CPU flag |
| |
On 11/20/13 22:10, Vinayak Kale wrote: > [removing chris.smith@st.com] > > On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 11:36 AM, Vinayak Kale <vkale@apm.com> wrote: >> On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 11:46 PM, Stephen Boyd <sboyd@codeaurora.org> wrote: >>> On 11/20/13 03:13, Vinayak Kale wrote: >>>> This patch adds an accessor function for IRQ_PER_CPU flag. >>>> The accessor function is useful to dertermine whether an IRQ is percpu or not. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Vinayak Kale <vkale@apm.com> >>>> --- >>> This looks like a copy of Chris Smith's patch. Shouldn't Chris be the >>> author and the commit text be whatever Chris sent? >> In the cover letter of this patch series I did mention about Chris's >> earlier patch. I didn't know his email-id earlier, have found the >> mail-id now. CCing the mail-id to check whether it's still valid. >> > Chris's mail-id doesn't seem to be valid, the earlier mail to his > mail-id [chris.smith@st.com] bounced. > Please let me know in such case how to mention original author's credits.
It's up to the maintainer accepting the patch. If I was picking up the patch I would say it doesn't really matter if the mail-id is valid anymore. Leave the original patch intact and just add your sign-off. If you took the patch and significantly changed it it's good to put "Based-on-a-patch-by:" and then take over authorship.
-- Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation
| |