Hi Julien, > On 11 May 2022, at 16:20, Julien Grall <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi, > > On 11/05/2022 15:41, Bertrand Marquis wrote: >>> On 10 May 2022, at 03:03, Stefano Stabellini <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> On Wed, 4 May 2022, Julien Grall wrote: >>>>> Do I understand right that it is ok for you if I push one patch mentioning >>>>> all the commits done in Linux corresponding to the changes (instead of one >>>>> patch per commit) ? >>>> >>>> For this case yes. >>> >>> I managed to do a review of the patch by doing a diff of the relevant >>> portion of Xen cpufeature.c with Linux cpufeature.c (from commit >>> b2d229d4ddb1), and the relevant portion of Xen sysregs.h with Linux >>> sysregs.h (diff -E -b -u). >>> >>> Everything checks out. >>> >>> In my opinion, this patch should be split in 2 patches: the changes to >>> cpufeature.c and sysregs.c that come from the Linux sources; and the >>> updates to cpufeature.h that do not. If you do that you can add my >>> reviewed-by to the first patch with the changes from Linux. >>> >>> The list of individual commit IDs would be nice, but thanksfully the two >>> source files are still "diffable" so in my opinion are not required. >> I agree with that. >> Julien: Do you agree if I just put the changes to cpufeature.h in a separate >> patch ? >> I started to list the commit IDs corresponding to the changes in Linux and >> this would >> end up with 5 or more which I do not think would be that useful as the diff >> can be easily >> done as Stefano mentioned. > > It looks like there are some confusion why I asked the list of commit. For > this case, this is not about diffing the code (it is easy to do and I have > already done that). It is more about authorship and where the patches come > from.
This is clear from the commit message as I give the commit in Linux used so the history can be easily found from that. I am a bit lost on the authorship part ... > > Technically, speaking you only copied the code from Linux and therefore you > are not the author of some of the changes. > > For such case, our general process is: Could you tell me where this process is described ? > 1) Backport the commit as-is (i.e the Author is the original Author) > 2) Add the tag Origin (recently introduced) > 3) Add your signed-off-by So following this theory, if we import a file from Linux we should list all the people who contributed to it since it was created ? > > I understand the patch is already written, so I was OK if you simply list of > the commits with the authors/tags for this time. I would like to understand where this requirement is coming from. @George: is there some kind of legal reason for something like that ? > > If both Stefano and you agree to not keep the authorships, then I will not > stand against it. However, I will not get involved in committing and adding > my ack. I want first to clear up this process and understand why you are requesting this to know how I should do anything like that in the future. Cheers Bertrand > > Cheers, > > -- > Julien Grall
