Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2017 09:28:15 -0400
From: Steven Rostedt <>
To: Greg KH <>
Cc: "Tobin C. Harding" <>, Petr Mladek <>, Joe
 Perches <>, Ian Campbell <>, Sergey
 Senozhatsky <>,,, Catalin
 Marinas <>, Will Deacon <>,
 William Roberts <>, Chris Fries
 <>, Dave Weinstein <>
Subject: Re: [RFC V2 0/6] add more kernel pointer filter

On Wed, 4 Oct 2017 14:42:33 +0200
Greg KH <> wrote:

> > Is correct protocol for me to add your Signed-off-by tag to each patch from this RFC? Or is the
> > protocol for you to add the tag yourself when the real version is posted?   
> You can add my signed-off-by to your new patches,

I was always told that one should never add someone else's
signed-off-by, because that's not what it means. 

I was told that this would be an Acked-by or Reviewed-by.

From Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst:

12) When to use Acked-by: and Cc:

The Signed-off-by: tag indicates that the signer was involved in the
development of the patch, or that he/she was in the patch's delivery path.

If a person was not directly involved in the preparation or handling of a
patch but wishes to signify and record their approval of it then they can
ask to have an Acked-by: line added to the patch's changelog.

Acked-by: is often used by the maintainer of the affected code when that
maintainer neither contributed to nor forwarded the patch.

Acked-by: is not as formal as Signed-off-by:.  It is a record that the acker
has at least reviewed the patch and has indicated acceptance.  Hence patch
mergers will sometimes manually convert an acker's "yep, looks good to me"
into an Acked-by: (but note that it is usually better to ask for an
explicit ack).

-- Steve

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.