On 11/20/13 22:10, Vinayak Kale wrote:

[removing chris.smith at st.com]

On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 11:36 AM, Vinayak Kale [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 11:46 PM, Stephen Boyd [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On 11/20/13 03:13, Vinayak Kale wrote:

quoted

This patch adds an accessor function for IRQ_PER_CPU flag.
The accessor function is useful to dertermine whether an IRQ is percpu or not.

Signed-off-by: Vinayak Kale <redacted>
---

This looks like a copy of Chris Smith's patch. Shouldn't Chris be the
author and the commit text be whatever Chris sent?

In the cover letter of this patch series I did mention about Chris's
earlier patch. I didn't know his email-id earlier, have found the
mail-id now. CCing the mail-id to check whether it's still valid.

Chris's mail-id doesn't seem to be valid, the earlier mail to his
mail-id [chris.smith at st.com] bounced.
Please let me know in such case how to mention original author's credits.

It's up to the maintainer accepting the patch. If I was picking up the
patch I would say it doesn't really matter if the mail-id is valid
anymore. Leave the original patch intact and just add your sign-off. If
you took the patch and significantly changed it it's good to put
"Based-on-a-patch-by:" and then take over authorship.

-- 
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
hosted by The Linux Foundation