linux-next: Signed-off-bys missing for commits in the block tree

linux-next: Signed-off-bys missing for commits in the block tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

Hi Jens,

Commits

  b6dccf7fae43 ("nvme: add support for FW activation without reset")
  62346eaeb2f1 ("nvme: define NVME_NSID_ALL")
  9b483da15dd0 ("nvme-fabrics: log a warning if hostid is invalid")
  ad4e05b24c42 ("nvme: add symbolic constants for CC identifiers")
  60b43f627a71 ("nvme: rename AMS symbolic constants to fit specification")
  5533d42480d6 ("nvme-fc: Reattach to localports on re-registration")
  48fa362b6c3f ("nvmet-fc: simplify sg list handling")
  01f33c336e2d ("string.h: add memcpy_and_pad()")
  17c39d053a46 ("nvmet: use memcpy_and_pad for identify sn/fr")
  a7b7c7a105a5 ("nvme-rdma: Use unlikely macro in the fast path")
  5228b3280b9b ("nvme: fix uninitialized prp2 value on small transfers")
  07fbd32a6b21 ("nvme: honor RTD3 Entry Latency for shutdowns")

are missing a Signed-off-bys from their committers.

Commits

  8ab761e17efa ("drbd: rename "usermode_helper" to "drbd_usermode_helper"")
  d3d2948f4353 ("drbd: abort drbd_start_resync if there is no connection")
  365cf663b647 ("drbd: switch from kmalloc() to kmalloc_array()")

are missing a Signed-off-bys from their authors.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

Re: linux-next: Signed-off-bys missing for commits in the block tree

[Christoph Hellwig]

On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 03:06:47AM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Commits
> 
>   b6dccf7fae43 ("nvme: add support for FW activation without reset")
>   62346eaeb2f1 ("nvme: define NVME_NSID_ALL")
>   9b483da15dd0 ("nvme-fabrics: log a warning if hostid is invalid")
>   ad4e05b24c42 ("nvme: add symbolic constants for CC identifiers")
>   60b43f627a71 ("nvme: rename AMS symbolic constants to fit specification")
>   5533d42480d6 ("nvme-fc: Reattach to localports on re-registration")
>   48fa362b6c3f ("nvmet-fc: simplify sg list handling")
>   01f33c336e2d ("string.h: add memcpy_and_pad()")
>   17c39d053a46 ("nvmet: use memcpy_and_pad for identify sn/fr")
>   a7b7c7a105a5 ("nvme-rdma: Use unlikely macro in the fast path")
>   5228b3280b9b ("nvme: fix uninitialized prp2 value on small transfers")
>   07fbd32a6b21 ("nvme: honor RTD3 Entry Latency for shutdowns")
> 
> are missing a Signed-off-bys from their committers.

They all have singnoffs from the original committer.  It's just
that we team-maintain the tree and had a rebase.

Are we supposed to add another Signoff just for the rebase?

Re: linux-next: Signed-off-bys missing for commits in the block tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

Hi Christoph,

On Wed, 30 Aug 2017 19:09:36 +0200 Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de> wrote:
>
> They all have singnoffs from the original committer.  It's just
> that we team-maintain the tree and had a rebase.
> 
> Are we supposed to add another Signoff just for the rebase?

>From a previous discussion, Linus said:

"On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 5:28 PM, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
>
> I would say that if you rebase someone's commit(s), then you are on the
> "patch's delivery path" and so should add a Signed-off-by tag.  

Yeah, I agree. Rebasing really is pretty much the exact same thing as
applying a patch."

So, yes, you are suppose to.
-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

Re: linux-next: Signed-off-bys missing for commits in the block tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

Hi Christoph,

On Wed, 30 Aug 2017 19:09:36 +0200 Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de> wrote:
>
> They all have singnoffs from the original committer.  It's just
> that we team-maintain the tree and had a rebase.
> 
> Are we supposed to add another Signoff just for the rebase?

From a previous discussion, Linus said:

"On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 5:28 PM, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
>
> I would say that if you rebase someone's commit(s), then you are on the
> "patch's delivery path" and so should add a Signed-off-by tag.  

Yeah, I agree. Rebasing really is pretty much the exact same thing as
applying a patch."

So, yes, you are suppose to.
-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

Re: linux-next: Signed-off-bys missing for commits in the block tree

[Christoph Hellwig]

On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 03:38:03AM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > I would say that if you rebase someone's commit(s), then you are on the
> > "patch's delivery path" and so should add a Signed-off-by tag.  
> 
> Yeah, I agree. Rebasing really is pretty much the exact same thing as
> applying a patch."

Ok, we'll get it right next time.