> -----Original Message----- > From: Jakub Kicinski <[email protected]> > Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2020 17:59 > To: Kirsher, Jeffrey T <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected]; Brady, Alan <[email protected]>; > [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; > Michael, Alice <[email protected]>; Burra, Phani R > <[email protected]>; Hay, Joshua A <[email protected]>; > Chittim, Madhu <[email protected]>; Linga, Pavan Kumar > <[email protected]>; Skidmore, Donald C > <[email protected]>; Brandeburg, Jesse > <[email protected]>; Samudrala, Sridhar > <[email protected]>; lkp <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [net-next v3 15/15] idpf: Introduce idpf driver > > On Tue, 30 Jun 2020 23:48:34 +0000 Kirsher, Jeffrey T wrote: > > > On Thu, 25 Jun 2020 19:07:37 -0700 Jeff Kirsher wrote: > > > > +MODULE_AUTHOR("Intel Corporation, <[email protected]>"); > > > > > > Corporations do not author things, people do. Please drop this. > > > > Your statement makes sense and I know that we have done this > > historically, like several other drivers (not saying it is right). > > The thought process was that our drivers are not written by just one > > or two people, but more like 20+ developers. So should we list all > > 20+ people that wrote the drivers, or just choose one person? Also > > what happens when that person no longer works at Intel and the email > > is no longer vaild, should we constantly update the MODULE_AUTHOR() to > > reflect valid employees working on the driver? That is the reason we > > were using "Intel Corporation" and a valid email that will always be > > good for support questions. > > MODULE_AUTHOR() is not required, most of the "documentation" page for this > driver is about where to get support, MAINTAINERS exist.. not to mention that > this is an upstream driver, so posting to netdev is always appropriate. > > I think we should be covered.
Ok, I am fine with that then. @Brady, Alan - Go ahead and just remove the MODULE_AUTHOR() line.
