Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1724617 > unrolled thread

linux-next: Signed-off-by missing for commit in the rdma tree

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

Contents

  linux-next: Signed-off-by missing for commit in the rdma tree Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> - 2017-09-01 00:00 +0200
    Re: linux-next: Signed-off-by missing for commit in the rdma tree Doug Ledford <dledford@redhat.com> - 2017-09-01 14:10 +0200
      Re: linux-next: Signed-off-by missing for commit in the rdma tree Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> - 2017-09-02 18:50 +0200

#1724617 — linux-next: Signed-off-by missing for commit in the rdma tree

Hi Doug,

Commit

  4b9796b0a6fb ("IB/hfi1: Use accessor to determine ring size")

is missing a Signed-off-by from its author.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1725004

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On 8/31/2017 5:50 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Doug,
> 
> Commit
> 
>   4b9796b0a6fb ("IB/hfi1: Use accessor to determine ring size")
> 
> is missing a Signed-off-by from its author.
> 

What's the best way to fix this?  I can rebase, but I know Linus hates
that.  What about git note?

-- 
Doug Ledford <dledford@redhat.com>
    GPG Key ID: B826A3330E572FDD
    Key fingerprint = AE6B 1BDA 122B 23B4 265B  1274 B826 A333 0E57 2FDD

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1725537

On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 5:06 AM, Doug Ledford <dledford@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 8/31/2017 5:50 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>> Hi Doug,
>>
>> Commit
>>
>>   4b9796b0a6fb ("IB/hfi1: Use accessor to determine ring size")
>>
>> is missing a Signed-off-by from its author.
>>
>
> What's the best way to fix this?  I can rebase, but I know Linus hates
> that.  What about git note?

We don't end up using (or forwarding) git notes, so that won't help.

Generally, the answer to missing sign-offs is "don't do that again" if
it's not something major and there isn't a _pattern_ of it happening.

In this case, it's a one-liner patch from a developer who has lots of
other sign-offs, from a company that is very aware of his work and the
GPL, and an active contributor. so it's not like it has any legal
implications.

If it was some big important patch from a more questionable source,
and we'd be worried about covering the legal side, it would be a
different issue. As it is, it falls under "mistakes happen, not a big
deal, try to avoid it in the future".

If it *was* a bigger issue and you really want to make sure that the
chain is there for new contributors etc, rebasing to fix sign-offs
ends up being the best (still bad) solution.

                      Linus

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web