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]

Date:   Tue, 22 Jun 2021 07:27:19 +1000
From:   Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To:     "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@...nel.org>
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

Hi Darrick,

On Mon, 21 Jun 2021 10:12:08 -0700 "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jun 21, 2021 at 08:26:56AM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > 
> > 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?

If you want to take a pull request, then use "git pull" (or "git fetch"
followed by "git merge") which will create a merge commit committed by
you.  The above commits were applied to your tree by you as patches (or
rebased) and so need your sign off.  The commits in a branch that you
just merge into your tree only need the SOBs for their author(s) and
committer.

If you then rebase your tree (with merge commits in it), you need to
use "git rebase -r" to preserve the merge commits.  alternatively, you
can rebase the commits you applied as patches and then redo the
pulls/merges manually.  You generally should not rebase other's work.

Of course, you should not really rebase a published tree at all (unless
vitally necessary) - see Documentation/maintainer/rebasing-and-merging.rst

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped