Re: [GIT PULL] irqchip fixes for 6.6, take #1

[Ingo Molnar]

* Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Hi Ingo,
> 
> On Thu, Sep 28, 2023 at 11:17 PM Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >   Signed-off-by: Neil Armstrong <neil.armstrong@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >   Signed-off-by: Marc Zyngier <maz@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >   Reviewed-by: Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >   Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230905-topic-sm8x50-upstream-pdc-ver-v4-2-fc633c7df84b@xxxxxxxxxx
> >
> > 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