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]
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

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ