linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: Signed-off-by missing for commits in the xfs 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]

Message-ID: <20210621171208.GD3619569@locust>
Date:   Mon, 21 Jun 2021 10:12:08 -0700
From:   "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@...nel.org>
To:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc:     David Chinner <david@...morbit.com>, linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org,
        Allison Henderson <allison.henderson@...cle.com>,
        Chandan Babu R <chandanrlinux@...il.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: Signed-off-by missing for commits in the xfs tree

On Mon, Jun 21, 2021 at 08:26:56AM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> Commits
> 
>   742140d2a486 ("xfs: xfs_log_force_lsn isn't passed a LSN")
>   e30fbb337045 ("xfs: Fix CIL throttle hang when CIL space used going backwards")
>   feb616896031 ("xfs: journal IO cache flush reductions")
>   6a5c6f5ef0a4 ("xfs: remove need_start_rec parameter from xlog_write()")
>   d7693a7f4ef9 ("xfs: CIL checkpoint flushes caches unconditionally")
>   e45cc747a6fd ("xfs: async blkdev cache flush")
>   9b845604a4d5 ("xfs: remove xfs_blkdev_issue_flush")
>   25f25648e57c ("xfs: separate CIL commit record IO")
>   a6a65fef5ef8 ("xfs: log stripe roundoff is a property of the log")
> 
> are missing a Signed-off-by from their committers.

<sigh> Ok, I'll rebase the branch again to fix the paperwork errors.

For future reference, if I want to continue accepting pull requests from
other XFS developers, what are the applicable standards for adding the
tree maintainer's (aka my) S-o-B tags?  I can't add my own S-o-Bs after
the fact without rewriting the branch history and changing the commit
ids (which would lose the signed tag), so I guess that means the person
sending the pull request has to add my S-o-B for me?  Which also doesn't
make sense?

--D

> -- 
> Cheers,
> Stephen Rothwell