User: Password:
|
|
Subscribe / Log in / New account

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.


(Log in to post comments)


Copyright © 2017, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds