On So., 8. Nov. 2020 at 10:19, Aditya <yashsri421@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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?
>

Make that further fix feature a new patch.

Lukas