On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 6:24 AM, Stephen Boyd <sb...@codeaurora.org> wrote: > On 11/20/13 22:10, Vinayak Kale wrote: >> [removing chris.sm...@st.com] >> >> On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 11:36 AM, Vinayak Kale <vk...@apm.com> wrote: >>> On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 11:46 PM, Stephen Boyd <sb...@codeaurora.org> wrote: >>>> On 11/20/13 03:13, Vinayak Kale wrote: >>>>> This patch adds an accessor function for IRQ_PER_CPU flag. >>>>> The accessor function is useful to dertermine whether an IRQ is percpu or >>>>> not. >>>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Vinayak Kale <vk...@apm.com> >>>>> --- >>>> This looks like a copy of Chris Smith's patch. Shouldn't Chris be the >>>> author and the commit text be whatever Chris sent? >>> In the cover letter of this patch series I did mention about Chris's >>> earlier patch. I didn't know his email-id earlier, have found the >>> mail-id now. CCing the mail-id to check whether it's still valid. >>> >> Chris's mail-id doesn't seem to be valid, the earlier mail to his >> mail-id [chris.sm...@st.com] bounced. >> Please let me know in such case how to mention original author's credits. > > It's up to the maintainer accepting the patch. If I was picking up the > patch I would say it doesn't really matter if the mail-id is valid > anymore. Leave the original patch intact and just add your sign-off. If > you took the patch and significantly changed it it's good to put > "Based-on-a-patch-by:" and then take over authorship. > Thanks for the info.
I have made a minor change w.r.t. Chris's original patch: changed the accessor function name from irq_is_per_cpu() to irq_is_percpu() since I think irq_is_percpu() name is more inline with other *percpu* kernel functions. I will put Chris's sign-off as well as mine. I hope tglx will be fine with this. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
