On Dienstag, 20. Oktober 2020 12:00:57 CEST Greg Kurz wrote: > On Tue, 20 Oct 2020 11:43:18 +0200 > > Christian Schoenebeck <qemu_...@crudebyte.com> wrote: > > On Dienstag, 20. Oktober 2020 09:36:10 CEST Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote: > > > On 10/8/20 8:34 PM, Christian Schoenebeck wrote: > > > > All existing 9pfs test cases are using the 'synth' fs driver so far, > > > > which > > > > means they are not accessing real files, but a purely simulated (in > > > > RAM > > > > only) file system. > > > > > > > > Let's make this clear by changing the prefix of the individual qtest > > > > case > > > > names from 'fs/' to 'synth/'. That way they'll be easily > > > > distinguishable > > > > from upcoming new 9pfs test cases supposed to be using a different fs > > > > driver. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Christian Schoenebeck <qemu_...@crudebyte.com> > > > > Message-Id: > > > > <e04e75acb849b085c6d6320b2433a15fa935bcff.1602182956.git.qemu_oss@crud > > > > eby > > > > te.com> Signed-off-by: Christian Schoenebeck <qemu_...@crudebyte.com> > > > > > > Harmless, but don't need to sign twice ;) > > > > Ah, I thought that's the common way, as Greg's PRs contained 2 SOBs as > > well, i.e. I thought this was intended to outline the patch author and > > submaintainer were the same person. > > > > BTW I actually did not explicitly add the 2nd SOB. It was rather added by > > the patchwork client automatically. So maybe it should be fixed in the > > client to detect an already existing SOB line? Or am missing something > > here? > Yeah this is the reason why my sob appears twice on patches authored by > me, and since this is harmless I never really investigated how to fix > pwclient :)
Well, I would usually offer my 'I can look at it' at this point, but I am reluctant this time as I assume it will end up as my recently suggested libqos patches where I did not get any response from the officially assigned maintainers; not even a simple 'nack'. Best regards, Christian Schoenebeck
