From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Darren Hart Subject: Re: linux-next: Signed-off-by missing for commit in the drivers-x86 tree Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2017 16:57:40 -0700 Message-ID: <20170802235740.GB27974@fury> References: <20170803063743.1d50a5d2@canb.auug.org.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([65.50.211.133]:37338 "EHLO bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751073AbdHBX5o (ORCPT ); Wed, 2 Aug 2017 19:57:44 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170803063743.1d50a5d2@canb.auug.org.au> Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Stephen Rothwell Cc: Linux-Next Mailing List , Linux Kernel Mailing List , "Gustavo A. R. Silva" , Andy Shevchenko , Dan Carpenter On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 06:37:43AM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi Darren, > > Commits > > 890f658c101d ("platform/x86: peaq-wmi: silence a static checker warning") > 6d8d55626296 ("platform/x86: msi-wmi: remove unnecessary static in msi_wmi_notify()") > cd0223c64c60 ("platform/x86: ibm_rtl: remove unnecessary static in ibm_rtl_write()") > > are missing Signed-off-by's from their commiter. So each of these was originally committed by Andy... but appear as committed by me. This must have occured as a rebase of our testing branch I suppose. Nothing has been out of the ordinary this development cycle, so I wonder that we haven't received such a report previously. Hrm. Is this a new check Stephen? Is there any statement regarding maintainer teams that we must abide by this? e.g. any time a rebase in a testing branch is made, the maintainer must also ensure a SOB is on each patch? I just want to get a clear picture of what the failure was so we can update our tooling so this doesn't repeat itself. -- Darren Hart VMware Open Source Technology Center