Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Tue, 4 Oct 2022 22:50:12 +1100
From:   Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
To:     Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
Cc:     "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@kernel.org>, linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org,
        Stephen Zhang <starzhangzsd@gmail.com>,
        Shida Zhang <zhangshida@kylinos.cn>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: Signed-off-by missing for commit in the xfs tree
Message-ID: <20221004225012.501e11ed@canb.auug.org.au>
In-Reply-To: <20221003222103.GM3600936@dread.disaster.area>
References: <20221004072302.345bfd4a@canb.auug.org.au>
        <20221003222103.GM3600936@dread.disaster.area>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Sig_/Ib3YZiwGdgXiXVkvXyv/JJR";
 protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha256
Precedence: bulk

--Sig_/Ib3YZiwGdgXiXVkvXyv/JJR
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi Dave,

On Tue, 4 Oct 2022 09:21:03 +1100 Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com> wrote:
>
> The commit matches exactly what was sent to the list. It's just
> that the patch was sent from a personal email address with a
> corporate signoff.
>=20
> Since when has that been an issue?  I -personally- have been doing
> this for well over a decade and I'm pretty sure there are lots of
> other people who also do this.

If you are happy (as the maintainer), then fine.  My script just could
not connect those 2 email addresses.  I check for matches between the
address itself (the part between the <>) or a match between the "name"
part (before the <>).  If either matches (or it is obvious) then I
don't report it.

I have reported very few of these.

> Hence if this is wrong, then we've got a tooling problem with b4.
> Why does b4 allow this rather than warn/fail if it's not actually
> allowed in the linux-next tree?

These reports are more of "is this right/was this a slipup?" rather
than "this is not allowed" i.e.. there are circumstances under which
the actual author does not (or cannot) provide a Signed-off-by and that
is OK.
--=20
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

--Sig_/Ib3YZiwGdgXiXVkvXyv/JJR
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEENIC96giZ81tWdLgKAVBC80lX0GwFAmM8HfQACgkQAVBC80lX
0Gy3pwf/cMAIaArvSzuxPZW7Ukbfi+Q94kZevrN8DrTCdF4ZPVOnlK3FftiQUjVg
TOtH3lRHFpRHxMIT/YLis5fgDlnhjXxk5rRM5iD8v9v/O+VhbmhfYxXKCUmJsI6v
EPTGP6Ogyqz29P8G223zI46+rOzY2u117ICnKpRa7v3bqHJGDlUWQFEgDMJqZjbW
UJGupQyFmuV6tN2wd4apZegM4wIBeGP0cLwCdL8Lv69afYy/EzTl09fLuevtF0rK
bbib1IXbkjADfoSGKUI4lRbHobxyqVfx9mSycY6kmw/Fe/mp0Ykdq3b5LLWvsvcs
737eINxrchZpQ++GsXZ3kFR/Y+W48Q==
=K9Ou
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--Sig_/Ib3YZiwGdgXiXVkvXyv/JJR--