Skip to contentSkip to conversation

Missing signoff in the hid tree

DISCUSSION Mark Brown 2 participants 5 messages Mar 20 – Apr 6 Linux-next tree

lore
Share & tools
lore

Mark Brown

author maintainer
#0 lore raw

Commit

142068281f513 ("HID: input: use __free(kfree) to clean up temporary buffers")

is missing a Signed-off-by from its committer

author maintainer
#1 lore raw
Quoted 5 lines · Mark Brown

Commit

142068281f513 ("HID: input: use __free(kfree) to clean up temporary buffers")

is missing a Signed-off-by from its committer

This issue is still present today.

author maintainer
#2 lore raw
Quoted 8 lines · Mark Brown
Quoted 5 lines · Mark Brown

Commit

142068281f513 ("HID: input: use __free(kfree) to clean up temporary buffers")

is missing a Signed-off-by from its committer

This issue is still present today.

And today.

#3 lore raw
Quoted 7 lines · Mark Brown
Quoted 5 lines
Quoted 3 lines

142068281f513 ("HID: input: use __free(kfree) to clean up temporary buffers")

is missing a Signed-off-by from its committer

This issue is still present today.

And today.

Yeah, this happened because Benjamin rebased a tree with commit a that I originally comitted and SOBed (the tree has a shared maintainership).

If you strongly believe that this is worth another rebase, I can happily do that, but given the fact that it contains signoff of one of the co-maintainers, I wouldn't lose sleep over it (but I can be probably easily convinced otherwise).

Thanks,

Signature · 2 lines
Jiri Kosina
SUSE Labs
author maintainer
#4 lore raw
Quoted 4 lines · Jiri Kosina
Quoted 1 line · Mark Brown
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line

142068281f513 ("HID: input: use __free(kfree) to clean up temporary buffers")

Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 5 lines
Quoted 3 lines
Quoted 1 line

is missing a Signed-off-by from its committer

This issue is still present today.

And today.

Yeah, this happened because Benjamin rebased a tree with commit a that I originally comitted and SOBed (the tree has a shared maintainership).

This is a common way people mess up signoffs.

Quoted 4 lines

If you strongly believe that this is worth another rebase, I can happily do that, but given the fact that it contains signoff of one of the co-maintainers, I wouldn't lose sleep over it (but I can be probably easily convinced otherwise).

That's more a question for Linus than for me.