Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Fri, 3 Apr 2020 12:10:29 +0300
From:   Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>
To:     George Spelvin <lkml@SDF.ORG>
Cc:     devel@driverdev.osuosl.org, Ajay.Kathat@microchip.com,
        gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org,
        Adham.Abozaeid@microchip.com, johannes@sipsolutions.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] staging: wilc1000: Use crc7 in lib/ rather than a
 private copy
Message-ID: <20200403091029.GC2001@kadam>
References: <20200326152251.19094-1-ajay.kathat@microchip.com>
 <20200402082745.GG2001@kadam>
 <20200402153034.GB2013@SDF.ORG>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200402153034.GB2013@SDF.ORG>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28)
Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Apr 02, 2020 at 03:30:34PM +0000, George Spelvin wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 02, 2020 at 11:27:45AM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > I don't know how this patch made it through two versions without anyone
> > complaining that this paragraph should be done as a separate patch...
> 
> I often fold comment (and spacing/formatting) patches in to a main
> patch, when touching adjacent code anyway and it doesn't cause
> distracting clutter.
> 
> This seemed like such a case, which is why I submitted it as one.
> But it's a bit of style thing.
> 

We're super strict in Staging.  :P  Greg is more strict than I am.

> >> Cc: Adham Abozaeid <adham.abozaeid@microchip.com>
> >> Cc: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org
> >> Reviewed-by: Ajay Singh <ajay.kathat@microchip.com>
> >> Signed-off-by: George Spelvin <lkml@sdf.org>
> >> ---
> > 
> > This should have you Signed-off-by.  The Reviewed-by is kind of assumed
> > so you can drop that bit.  But everyone who touches a patch needs to
> > add their signed off by.
> 
> Er... all he did was add "staging: " to the front of the title.
> 
> That's not a change to the code at all, and as trivial a change
> to the commit message as adding "Reviewed-by:" to the end.
> We don't need S-o-b for such things or we'd end up in a horrible
> infinite recursion.

You've misunderstood.  He sent the email so he has to add his
Signed-off-by.  It's not at all related to changing anything in the
patch.  That's how sign offs work.

regards,
dan carpenter