Signed-off-by's not only by gatekeepers
Signed-off-by's not only by gatekeepers
Posted Jan 21, 2008 19:42 UTC (Mon) by bunk (subscriber, #44933)Parent article: 2.6.24 - some statistics
I was wondering how on earth it could happen that I came into the TOP20 at "Sign-offs in the 2.6.24 kernel". The problem is that the following statement sn't completely true: "Looking at the Signed-off-by headers of patches is always interesting; if one removes the signoffs added by the authors themselves, what is left is a list of the gatekeepers - those who channel the code into the mainline." But this also happens when Andrew merges patches. E.g. in current -mm the header of maps4-add-proc-kpagecount-interface.patch reads: <-- snip --> From: Matt Mackall <mpm@selenic.com> This makes physical page map counts available to userspace. Together with /proc/pid/pagemap and /proc/pid/clear_refs, this can be used to monitor memory usage on a per-page basis. [bunk@stusta.de: make struct proc_kpagemap static] Signed-off-by: Matt Mackall <mpm@selenic.com> Cc: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org> Cc: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com> Signed-off-by: Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de> Cc: Dave Hansen <haveblue@us.ibm.com> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> <-- snip --> If this patch will get into Linus' tree your statistics will wrongly list me as a gatekeeper for this patch.
