Hi all,
Commit
53a70daf3cfd ("KVM: nVMX: get rid of nested_release_page*")
is missing a Signed-off-by from its committer.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell
On 11.08.2017 01:28, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Commit
>
> 53a70daf3cfd ("KVM: nVMX: get rid of nested_release_page*")
>
> is missing a Signed-off-by from its committer.
>
Thanks,
Paolo's signed-off is missing.
--
Thanks,
David
2017-08-11 08:29+0200, David Hildenbrand:
> On 11.08.2017 01:28, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Commit
> >
> > 53a70daf3cfd ("KVM: nVMX: get rid of nested_release_page*")
> >
> > is missing a Signed-off-by from its committer.
> >
>
> Thanks,
>
> Paolo's signed-off is missing.
Yes, it is a result of our workflow and there are many more patches like
that. In this case, I originally committed the patch on 08-03 and Paolo
rebased the branch on 08-07.
We rebase when testing discovers bugs and for the first few release
candidates (when there are not enough changes to put into next).
Should all rebases be done with the --signoff option?
Thanks.
Hi Radim,
On Fri, 11 Aug 2017 14:36:24 +0200 Radim Krčmář <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Should all rebases be done with the --signoff option?
More or less. rebase with the --signoff option will add a duplicate
Signed-off-by unless the already existing one is last in the current
commit.
Linus has said that doing a rebase is no different to applying a patch,
so a new committer needs to add a Signed-off-by tag.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell
On 06/08/2018 23:39, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Commit
>
> 81781b6884bd ("KVM/x86: Use CC_SET()/CC_OUT in arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c")
>
> is missing a Signed-off-by from its committer.
>
Fixed at the same time as resolving the conflicts.
Paolo