linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: Signed-off-by missing for commit in the nfs-anna tree

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 17 Dec 2018 08:59:58 -0500
From:   Chris Perl <cperl@...estreet.com>
To:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc:     Anna Schumaker <Anna.Schumaker@...app.com>,
        Trond Myklebust <trondmy@...il.com>,
        NFS Mailing List <linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: Signed-off-by missing for commit in the nfs-anna tree

On Sun, Dec 16, 2018 at 1:19 AM Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
> Commit
>
>   748d6fd8d297 ("NFS: nfs_compare_mount_options always compare auth flavors.")
>
> is missing a Signed-off-by from its author.

Whoops.  Sorry about that (I forgot to run it through checkpatch.pl).

Should I resend a fresh patch with the Signed-off-by included or is it
enough to just assert in this email that I wrote it and have the right
to pass it on?  If the latter is sufficient, then I do assert those
things.  If not, I'm happy to resend.