[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170811123623.GA28649@flask>
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2017 14:36:24 +0200
From: Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@...hat.com>
To: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
Cc: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>,
Gleb Natapov <gleb@...nel.org>, KVM <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux-Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: Signed-off-by missing for commit in the kvm tree
2017-08-11 08:29+0200, David Hildenbrand:
> On 11.08.2017 01:28, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Commit
> >
> > 53a70daf3cfd ("KVM: nVMX: get rid of nested_release_page*")
> >
> > is missing a Signed-off-by from its committer.
> >
>
> Thanks,
>
> Paolo's signed-off is missing.
Yes, it is a result of our workflow and there are many more patches like
that. In this case, I originally committed the patch on 08-03 and Paolo
rebased the branch on 08-07.
We rebase when testing discovers bugs and for the first few release
candidates (when there are not enough changes to put into next).
Should all rebases be done with the --signoff option?
Thanks.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists