Re: [PATCH 05/18] sparse: correctly handle "-D foo" and "-U foo". The former is from sparse upstream, but they didn't fix the latter for some reason.

On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 08:44:36AM +0000, John Levon wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 01:27:35AM +0100, Luc Van Oostenryck wrote:
> 
> > Putting this DCO question aside, I would find normal that the commit
> > message would contains a small note adding something like:
> >       [This patch was originally written by ...]
> 
> It's in the subject (where it ended up from git format-patch). Dan has
> already taken me to task for the format of the commits here.
> 
> > The signed-off-by should be like:
> >       Signed-off-by: Original Author <[email protected]>
> >       Signed-off-by: John Levon <[email protected]>
> 
> This sounds awfully like *you've* signed off on *this* patch, but sure,
> whatever is the usual way.
>

The logic there is that everyone who touches the patch has to sign off
that they didn't add any Secret SCO Unix Source Code to the patch.

> On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 10:49:09AM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> 
> > It looks like everything was BCC instead of To: and Cc:?  I can't tell
> > which went to linux-sparse and which [email protected].  Smatch is
> > GPL and Sparse is MIT, but any shared code is MIT licensed.
> 
> I screwed up the mailing (next ones will be better), but they all went
> to smatch. As being in smatch and not sparse is of no use to us, I
> thought this made sense right now at least until smatch is nearer
> upstream.
> 
> > cherry-pick those two patches.  Or John, you could cherry-pick them and
> > send them to me.  `man git cherry-pick`.
> 
> There's a good few more than just two. If you'd prefer, I can work on
> taking them upstream first?

Upstreaming first is more ideal, but I'll take them as-is if you want.
Smatch licensing allows anyone to upstream shared code from Smatch to
Sparse after the fact as well.

regards,
dan carpenter