Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 29 Sep 2023 23:05:51 +0200 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: [GIT PULL] irqchip fixes for 6.6, take #1 |
| |
* Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org> wrote:
> Hi Ingo, > > On Thu, Sep 28, 2023 at 11:17 PM Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> wrote: > > So the tags should be something like: > > > > Fixes: 397ad94668c1 ("arm64: dts: qcom: sm8150: Add pdc interrupt controller node") > > Signed-off-by: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@linaro.org> > > Signed-off-by: Neil Armstrong <neil.armstrong@linaro.org> > > Signed-off-by: Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org> > > Reviewed-by: Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@linaro.org> > > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230905-topic-sm8x50-upstream-pdc-ver-v4-2-fc633c7df84b@linaro.org > > > > Ie. we generally sort the tags not chronologically (or whatever the original idea > > was), but group them topically, sort the groups by importance, and only within > > the group is there chronological order. > > The tags should represent the order of the hand-off chain: > > https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.6-rc1/source/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst#L449 > > and chronological history: > > https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.6-rc1/source/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst#L493
That chronological requirement is only for the SOB chain itself.
To quote Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst:
Standard sign-off procedure applies, i.e. the ordering of Signed-off-by: tags should reflect the chronological history of the patch insofar as possible,
which is exactly what I wrote above:
> > > only within the group is there chronological order. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
In fact it would be crazy to require that all the tags are chronological, in the random order they arrived, which the commits I pointed out appeared to be.
Thanks,
Ingo
| |