linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: Signed-off-by missing for commit in the kvm 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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

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.