Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 17 Jun 2013 15:07:38 +0200 | From | Peter Zijlstra <> | Subject | Re: [patch v8 3/9] sched: set initial value of runnable avg for new forked task |
| |
On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 05:57:50PM +0800, Alex Shi wrote: > On 06/17/2013 05:21 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > >> > > >> > and make forking balancing imbalance since incorrect load_avg_contrib. > >> > > >> > Further more, Morten Rasmussen notice some tasks were not launched at > >> > once after created. So Paul and Peter suggest giving a start value for > >> > new task runnable avg time same as sched_slice(). > >> > > >> > Signed-off-by: Alex Shi <alex.shi@intel.com> > >> > Signed-off-by: Paul Turner <pjt@google.com> > > Should you all go read: Documentation/SubmittingPatches , or am I > > somehow confused on the SoB rules? > > has this should been right, if Paul had handed in the modified patch as > he suggested? :) > > Sorry for stupid, I still don't know what's SoB rule?
Right, so it depends on who actually wrote the patch; the only case that's really hard is when a patch is fully co-authored -- agile dev nonsense like, 4 hands 1 keyboard situation or so.
Typically there's 1 somebody who did most work on a particular patch; that someone would be Author/From and have first SoB.
If thereafter the patch becomes part of an aggregate work; he who compiles can add another SoB; possibly with an extra [] line describing 'smallish' changes that were needed to the initial patch to make it fit the aggregate.
Example:
From: PJT
foo patch implements foo because bar; note the fubar detail.
SoB: PJT [alex@intel: changed ponies into horses to make it fit] SoB: Alex
The other case is where a 'simple' modification of the initial patch simply won't do; you need to change the core idea of the patch or similar. In this case I've seen things like:
From: Alex
foo patch implements foo because bar; note the fubar detail.
Based-on-patch-by: PJT SoB: Alex
This isn't actually in the submitting patches document and I'm not sure it should be; although some clarification for these weird cases might be useful.
| |