On 8/11/20 12:17 pm, Lukas Bulwahn wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, 8 Nov 2020, Aditya wrote:
>
>> On 8/11/20 12:08 am, Lukas Bulwahn wrote:
>>>
>>> Can you share the six commits?
>>>
>>> Then we check if the fix is really the right fix of if something different
>>> is wrong with these commits.
>>>
>>
>>
>> These are the commits where this warning for BAD_SIGN_OFF was getting
>> triggered(over 4.13..5.8):
>> 1) Commit 1d1f898df658 ("rcu: Do RCU GP kthread self-wakeup from
>> softirq and interrupt")
>> 2) Commit 6e88559470f5 ("Documentation: Add section about CPU
>> vulnerabilities for Spectre")
>> 3) Commit a35d16905efc ("rcu: Add basic support for kfree_rcu() batching")
>> 4) Commit b7e4aadef28f ("locking/spinlocks: Document the semantics of
>> spin_is_locked()")
>> 5) Commit 621df431b0ac ("Documentation/memory-barriers.txt:
>> Cross-reference "tools/memory-model/"")
>> 6) Commit 1c27b644c0fd ("Automate memory-barriers.txt; provide
>> Linux-kernel memory model")
>>
>
> I checked all six cases and think the proposed fix is always okay.
>
> I guess there is still the warning that Co-developed-by: should
> immediately be followed up the Signed-off-by:, right?
>
> A possible fix for that would be to check if the needed Signed-off-by:
> follows somewhere and then just move that to the appropriate place in the
> patch.
>

Should I add this in the current patch itself or create another patch
for it?