Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] cxl/mbox: Remove redundant dev_err() after failed mem alloc

[RAGHU H]

Hello All,

Just checked the response to this patch, sorry for responding late here.

I will take a note on all the points raised and will follow the
guidelines in future patches, and will correct this patch too.

Regards
Raghu


On Thu, May 4, 2023 at 8:53 PM Alison Schofield
<alison.schofield@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Thu, May 04, 2023 at 12:46:37PM +0200, Fabio wrote:
> > On giovedì 4 maggio 2023 00:03:07 CEST Alison Schofield wrote:
> > > On Wed, May 03, 2023 at 08:32:37PM +0200, Fabio wrote:
> > > > On venerdì 28 aprile 2023 03:22:34 CEST Raghu H wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Raghu H <raghuhack78@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > >
> > > > Is "Raghu H" the name you sign legal documents with?
> > >
> > > Fabio,
> > > Rather than asking a specific question to determine if this is a
> > > valid SOB, let's just point folks to the documentation to figure
> > > it out themselves.
> > > I'm aware that the 'sign legal documents' test
> > > has been used in the past, but kernel only actually requires a
> > > known identity.
> > >
> > > https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/v4.17/process/submitting-patches.html#sign-you
> > > r-work-the-developer-s-certificate-of-origin
> > > https://github.com/cncf/foundation/blob/659fd32c86dc/dco-guidelines.md
> >
> > Alison,
> >
> > Thanks for your suggestions.
> >
> > I have just a couple of questions about this issue...
> >
> > 1) How do we know that the "real name", which the Linux official documentation
> > refers to, should be interpreted in accordance to the document pointed by the
> > second link you provided?
> >
> > I mean, how can we be sure that the official documentation should be
> > interpreted according to the second link, since it doesn't even cite that
> > document from CNCF?
> >
> > Can you provide links to documents / LKML's threads that state agreement of
> > our Community about the "relaxed" interpretation by CNCF?
>
> Citation is hidden it git history. See:
> d4563201f33a ("Documentation: simplify and clarify DCO contribution example language")
>
> >
> > 2) It looks that some maintainers (e.g., Greg K-H) still interpret "[] using
> > your real name (sorry, no pseudonyms or anonymous contributions.)" in a
> > "strict" and "common" sense.
>
> See the commit log above. The language was updated to say
> "using a known identity (sorry, no anonymous contributions.)"
>
> >
> > Can you remember that Greg refused all patches from "Kloudifold" and why? If
> > not, please take a look at the following two questions / objections from Greg:
> > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-staging/ZCQkPr6t8IOvF6bk@xxxxxxxxx/ and
> > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-staging/ZBCjK2BXhfiFooeO@xxxxxxxxx/.
>
> The second link above is Greg recognizing that known pseudonyms are
> allowed.
>
> >
> > It seems that this issue it's not yet settled.
> > Am I overlooking something?
>
> Hey, I'm not meaning to jump on you for asking Raghu the question.
> I realize you are being helpful to someone who is submitting their first
> patch. I'm just saying to make the submitter aware of the guideline and
> put the burden on them to make sure they're using a known identity.
>
> Sometimes, what one person thinks of as 'common' is not. Let's refer to
> the docs and not add out personal or historical layers of interpretation
> on top of it. (The legal doc signing question may not apply to everyone.)
>
> Alison
>
> >
> > Again thanks,
> >
> > Fabio
> >
> > > > If not, please send a new version signed-off-by your full legal name.
> > > > Otherwise... sorry for the noise.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > >
> > > > Fabio
> >
> >
> >