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, 3 Jan 2023 10:51:21 +0100
From:   Heiko Carstens <hca@linux.ibm.com>
To:     yang.yang29@zte.com.cn
Cc:     freude@linux.ibm.com, gor@linux.ibm.com, agordeev@linux.ibm.com,
        borntraeger@linux.ibm.com, svens@linux.ibm.com,
        linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        xu.panda@zte.com.cn
Subject: Re: [PATCH linux-next v2] s390/zcrypt: use strscpy() to instead of
 strncpy()
Message-ID: <Y7P6mSuYkmP8g8Ot@osiris>
References: <202301031002076571212@zte.com.cn>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <202301031002076571212@zte.com.cn>
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Jan 03, 2023 at 10:02:07AM +0800, yang.yang29@zte.com.cn wrote:
> From: Yang Yang <yang.yang29@zte.com>
> 
> The implementation of strscpy() is more robust and safer.
> That's now the recommended way to copy NUL-terminated strings.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Yang Yang <yang.yang29@zte.com>
> Signed-off-by: Xu Panda <xu.panda@zte.com.cn>
> ---
> chang for v2
>  - match the FROM with the Email

You sent this from yang.yang29@zte.com.cn, but the sign-off is without the
".cn" suffix. Can you please make sure that your sign-off chain actually
follows the rules as outlined in Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst?

If you read that then the sign-off line from Xu Panda shouldn't be there,
since the patch was not authored or routed via Xu Panda.