xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH] xfs: add more checks to superblock validation

To: Felix Blyakher <felixb@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfs: add more checks to superblock validation
From: "Josef 'Jeff' Sipek" <jeffpc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 12:52:18 -0400
Cc: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <3296B35F-1364-4E7B-856B-041AF746BFFC@xxxxxxx>
References: <1240002765-20279-1-git-send-email-felixb@xxxxxxx> <20090418050544.GQ3709@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <81FBAD0F-AE2A-4780-BC8B-135C4CCE8D3A@xxxxxxx> <20090419181410.GS3709@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <3296B35F-1364-4E7B-856B-041AF746BFFC@xxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 10:47:30AM -0500, Felix Blyakher wrote:
...
>> This makes me believe that the author
>> should include a s-o-b line as well.
>>
>> So, for example, whenever _I_ send a patch that I authored, I have  
>> both a From and a s-o-b.
>
> That seems redundant based on the following excerpt from the
> SubmittingPatches:
>
> If the "from" line is missing,
> then the "From:" line from the email header will be used to determine
> the patch author in the changelog.

If you look at the "sign your work" section in that doc, the example it
provides shows the original patch author having a s-o-b as well. ;)

Anyway, enough of this...time to hack on xfs some more :)

Jeff.

-- 
*NOTE: This message is ROT-13 encrypted twice for extra protection*

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>