> On Jul 21, 2025, at 12:29 AM, Neeraj upadhyay <neeraj.iit...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Sun, Jul 20, 2025 at 10:01 AM Akira Yokosawa <aki...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> ...
>
>> There seems to be a couple of issues in the S-O-B chains of commits listed
>> below (in rcu/next):
>>
>> * dcf1668449c9 ("rcu: Document GP init vs hotplug-scan ordering
>> requirements")
>> * bb1c373934db ("rcu: Document concurrent quiescent state reporting for
>> offline CPUs")
>>
>> They have a "Co-developed-by:" tag without a corresponding "Signed-off-by:"
>> tag [1].
>>
>> Or, if the contribution is too minor to have a "Signed-off-by:",
>> then a "Suggested-by:" tag with a "Link:" to the relevant message should
>> suffice.
>>
>> I have no idea which approach suits better in each commit above.
>>
>> [1]: Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst
>> section "When to use Acked-by:, Cc:, and Co-developed-by:"
>>
>
> Thanks for reviewing this! I will fix the tags.
>
>
>> Quoting relevant paragraph:
>>
>> Co-developed-by: states that the patch was co-created by multiple
>> developers;
>> it is used to give attribution to co-authors (in addition to the author
>> attributed by the From: tag) when several people work on a single patch.
>> Since
>> Co-developed-by: denotes authorship, every Co-developed-by: must be
>> immediately
>> followed by a Signed-off-by: of the associated co-author. 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, regardless of
>> whether
>> the author is attributed via From: or Co-developed-by:. Notably, the last
>> Signed-off-by: must always be that of the developer submitting the patch.
>>
>> Side note:
>> scripts/checkpatch.pl would have complained about those missing
>> Signed-off-by: tags.
>>
>>>
>>> .../Data-Structures/Data-Structures.rst | 32 +++++
>>> .../RCU/Design/Requirements/Requirements.rst | 128 ++++++++++++++++++
>>
>> I'm seeing sub-optimal uses of reST markups in Requirements.rst from kernel
>> documentation stand point.
>>
>> I'm going to submit a patch or two to improve them, but I can't promise when.
>> They will likely be only cosmetic cleanups and I'm OK with it upstreamed as
>> it is.
>>
>
> Thanks!
Thanks, I appreciate that!
- Joel
>
>
> - Neeraj
