lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Dec]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2] sched/fair: Do not set skip buddy up the sched hierarchy
On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 09:42:44PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 11:58:28AM -0800, Josh Don wrote:
> > > Ingo, Peter, what do you think ?
> >
> > I could add the Co-developed-by tag if that would be sufficient here.
> > As a side note, I'm also looking at upstreaming our other sched
> > fixes/patches, and some of these have the same issue with respect to
> > the original author. How would you prefer I handle these in general?
>
> These internal patches that you have, don't they have a SoB on from the
> original author?
>
> Ingo, Greg, how do we handle patches where the original Author has
> vanished/left etc and no SoB is present?
>
> Now, in this case we know Venki was with Google in the US, and the US
> allows/has copyright assignment to employers and therefore any old SoB
> from a Google person should probably be sufficient, but that argument
> doesn't work in general (Germany for example doesn't allow copyright
> assignment/transfer).

Most Google kernel work is "work for hire" from what I have heard.

But the copyright of the patch really doesn't matter if the patch is
under the GPLv2 (obviously here), then anyone can send it in and put
their s-o-b on it. The fact that it's someone from the same company is
good enough to let us know who to track down and kick if something
breaks with the patch, which is all we really need :)

hope this helps,

greg k-h

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-12-17 22:01    [W:0.032 / U:2.876 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site