[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170802235740.GB27974@fury>
Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2017 16:57:40 -0700
From: Darren Hart <dvhart@...radead.org>
To: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc: Linux-Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavo@...eddedor.com>,
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: Signed-off-by missing for commit in the drivers-x86
tree
On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 06:37:43AM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Darren,
>
> Commits
>
> 890f658c101d ("platform/x86: peaq-wmi: silence a static checker warning")
> 6d8d55626296 ("platform/x86: msi-wmi: remove unnecessary static in msi_wmi_notify()")
> cd0223c64c60 ("platform/x86: ibm_rtl: remove unnecessary static in ibm_rtl_write()")
>
> are missing Signed-off-by's from their commiter.
So each of these was originally committed by Andy... but appear as
committed by me. This must have occured as a rebase of our testing
branch I suppose. Nothing has been out of the ordinary this development
cycle, so I wonder that we haven't received such a report previously.
Hrm.
Is this a new check Stephen?
Is there any statement regarding maintainer teams that we must abide by
this? e.g. any time a rebase in a testing branch is made, the
maintainer must also ensure a SOB is on each patch?
I just want to get a clear picture of what the failure was so we can
update our tooling so this doesn't repeat itself.
--
Darren Hart
VMware Open Source Technology Center
Powered by blists - more mailing lists