Subject: Re: [PATCH 22/23] lock_any_ref_for_update(): inline function

From: Michael Haggerty <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2014 01:13:10 +0100

On 12/09/2014 12:34 AM, Stefan Beller wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 05, 2014 at 12:08:34AM +0100, Michael Haggerty wrote:
>> From: Ronnie Sahlberg <[email-masked]>
>>
>> Inline the function at its one remaining caller (which is within
>> refs.c) and remove it.
>>
> 
> 
>> Signed-off-by: Michael Haggerty <[email-masked]>
> 
> It's originally from Ronnie, but his sign off is missing?
> 
> If that sign off is found again, 
> Reviewed-by: Stefan Beller <[email-masked]>

Sorry for the confusion.

This patch ultimately descends from a patch by Ronnie that completely
deleted lock_any_ref_for_update() because (in the context that he wrote
it) there were no remaining callers of that function.

In the context of this patch, there *is* a remaining caller. So this
patch is different--it deletes the obvious stuff as in Ronnie's patch,
but it also inlines the function at its last caller. And the commit
message is completely different.

Given those differences and the fact that the only overlap with Ronnie's
original patch is the *deletion* of content, I thought it most
appropriate to change the authorship of the patch. So I removed Ronnie's
Signed-off-by line but I forgot to remove his authorship.

If anybody thinks it would be more appropriate to leave Ronnie as author
of the new patch or leave his Signed-off-by line, I am totally OK with
doing so. I'm just trying to figure out what's right.

Otherwise, I will change the authorship of the patch to myself in the
upcoming reroll and include only my own Signed-off-by line.

Michael

-- 
Michael Haggerty
[email-masked]