Re: linux-next: Signed-off-by missing for commit in the drivers-x86 tree

Hi, On 4/14/21 3:51 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi all, > > Commit > > ff57cfaa3d68 ("platform/x86: pmc_atom: Match all Beckhoff Automation > baytrail boards with critclk_systems DMI table") > > is missing a Signed-off-by from its committer. My bad I somehow forgot to pass -s to "git

linux-next: Signed-off-by missing for commit in the drivers-x86 tree

Hi all, Commit ff57cfaa3d68 ("platform/x86: pmc_atom: Match all Beckhoff Automation baytrail boards with critclk_systems DMI table") is missing a Signed-off-by from its committer. -- Cheers, Stephen Rothwell pgpK7vO1nXM1y.pgp Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: linux-next: Signed-off-by missing for commit in the drivers-x86 tree

Hi all, On 4/8/21 2:13 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi all, > > Commit > > 11cccec79c60 ("genirq: Add IRQF_NO_AUTOEN for request_irq/nmi()") > > is missing a Signed-off-by from its committer. Ugh, thanks for letting me know, this was supposed to come from a merge from an immutable branch

linux-next: Signed-off-by missing for commit in the drivers-x86 tree

Hi all, Commit 11cccec79c60 ("genirq: Add IRQF_NO_AUTOEN for request_irq/nmi()") is missing a Signed-off-by from its committer. -- Cheers, Stephen Rothwell pgppsj7QakBNS.pgp Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: linux-next: Signed-off-by missing for commit in the drivers-x86 tree

On Mon, May 6, 2019 at 4:22 PM Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > Hi all, > > Commit > > cc86bb923508 ("platform/x86: thinkpad_acpi: fix spelling mistake > "capabilites" -> "capabilities"") > > is missing a Signed-off-by from its committer. It's fixed now, thanks! > > -- > Cheers, > Stephen

linux-next: Signed-off-by missing for commit in the drivers-x86 tree

Hi all, Commit cc86bb923508 ("platform/x86: thinkpad_acpi: fix spelling mistake "capabilites" -> "capabilities"") is missing a Signed-off-by from its committer. -- Cheers, Stephen Rothwell pgpaTqbRpnEU5.pgp Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: linux-next: Signed-off-by missing for commit in the drivers-x86 tree

Hi Darren, On Sat, 23 Feb 2019 09:52:07 -0800 Darren Hart wrote: > > Apologies if I've asked you this before... I didn't find it after some > searching. > > We should be catching errors like this before they hit next. First, > there is no reason we can't catch them - unlike the integration

Re: linux-next: Signed-off-by missing for commit in the drivers-x86 tree

On Sun, Feb 24, 2019 at 01:19:25AM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi all, > > Commit > > 9bfe33ba29d0 ("x86/CPU: Add Icelake model number") > > is missing a Signed-off-by from its committer. > Hi Stephen, Apologies if I've asked you this before... I didn't find it after some searching.

Re: linux-next: Signed-off-by missing for commit in the drivers-x86 tree

On Sun, Feb 24, 2019 at 01:19:25AM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi all, > > Commit > > 9bfe33ba29d0 ("x86/CPU: Add Icelake model number") > > is missing a Signed-off-by from its committer. Thanks for the catch. Andy, please check your commit scripts as should definitely be automated in

linux-next: Signed-off-by missing for commit in the drivers-x86 tree

Hi all, Commit 9bfe33ba29d0 ("x86/CPU: Add Icelake model number") is missing a Signed-off-by from its committer. -- Cheers, Stephen Rothwell pgpEWJcWekscX.pgp Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: linux-next: Signed-off-by missing for commit in the drivers-x86 tree

Hi Hans, On Sun, 19 Aug 2018 10:21:40 +0200 Hans de Goede wrote: > > On 18-08-18 16:35, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > Commit > > > >cda5915d15d3 ("platform/x86: touchscreen_dmi: Add info for the Cube > > KNote i1101 tablet") > > For reasons which I do not know youling

Re: linux-next: Signed-off-by missing for commit in the drivers-x86 tree

Hi Hans, On Sun, 19 Aug 2018 10:21:40 +0200 Hans de Goede wrote: > > On 18-08-18 16:35, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > Commit > > > >cda5915d15d3 ("platform/x86: touchscreen_dmi: Add info for the Cube > > KNote i1101 tablet") > > For reasons which I do not know youling

Re: linux-next: Signed-off-by missing for commit in the drivers-x86 tree

Hi, On 18-08-18 16:35, Stephen Rothwell wrote: Hi all, Commit cda5915d15d3 ("platform/x86: touchscreen_dmi: Add info for the Cube KNote i1101 tablet") For reasons which I do not know youling does not wish to use his real name. So as with the "platform/x86: touchscreen_dmi: Add info for

Re: linux-next: Signed-off-by missing for commit in the drivers-x86 tree

Hi, On 18-08-18 16:35, Stephen Rothwell wrote: Hi all, Commit cda5915d15d3 ("platform/x86: touchscreen_dmi: Add info for the Cube KNote i1101 tablet") For reasons which I do not know youling does not wish to use his real name. So as with the "platform/x86: touchscreen_dmi: Add info for

linux-next: Signed-off-by missing for commit in the drivers-x86 tree

Hi all, Commit cda5915d15d3 ("platform/x86: touchscreen_dmi: Add info for the Cube KNote i1101 tablet") is missing a Signed-off-by from its author. -- Cheers, Stephen Rothwell pgpo0vHZOCf_2.pgp Description: OpenPGP digital signature

linux-next: Signed-off-by missing for commit in the drivers-x86 tree

Hi all, Commit cda5915d15d3 ("platform/x86: touchscreen_dmi: Add info for the Cube KNote i1101 tablet") is missing a Signed-off-by from its author. -- Cheers, Stephen Rothwell pgpo0vHZOCf_2.pgp Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: linux-next: Signed-off-by missing for commit in the drivers-x86 tree

On Sat, Jun 02, 2018 at 01:26:46AM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi, > > On Fri, 01 Jun 2018 07:38:42 -0700 dvh...@infradead.org wrote: > > > > Stephen, are the tests you use available publicly? > > I use the script below when I am fetching trees. You don't want the > "gitk" invocation if

Re: linux-next: Signed-off-by missing for commit in the drivers-x86 tree

On Sat, Jun 02, 2018 at 01:26:46AM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi, > > On Fri, 01 Jun 2018 07:38:42 -0700 dvh...@infradead.org wrote: > > > > Stephen, are the tests you use available publicly? > > I use the script below when I am fetching trees. You don't want the > "gitk" invocation if

Re: linux-next: Signed-off-by missing for commit in the drivers-x86 tree

Hi, On Fri, 01 Jun 2018 07:38:42 -0700 dvh...@infradead.org wrote: > > Stephen, are the tests you use available publicly? I use the script below when I am fetching trees. You don't want the "gitk" invocation if you are doing this automatically, of course. The script just takes a commit range.

Re: linux-next: Signed-off-by missing for commit in the drivers-x86 tree

Hi, On Fri, 01 Jun 2018 07:38:42 -0700 dvh...@infradead.org wrote: > > Stephen, are the tests you use available publicly? I use the script below when I am fetching trees. You don't want the "gitk" invocation if you are doing this automatically, of course. The script just takes a commit range.

Re: linux-next: Signed-off-by missing for commit in the drivers-x86 tree

On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 5:33 PM, wrote: > On June 1, 2018 5:08:32 AM PDT, Stephen Rothwell > wrote: >>On Fri, 1 Jun 2018 14:40:35 +0300 Andy Shevchenko >> wrote: >>> >>> Oops. What is the proposed fix for that? It seems we can't rebase >>> published branches. >> >>It's unfixable without a

Re: linux-next: Signed-off-by missing for commit in the drivers-x86 tree

On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 5:33 PM, wrote: > On June 1, 2018 5:08:32 AM PDT, Stephen Rothwell > wrote: >>On Fri, 1 Jun 2018 14:40:35 +0300 Andy Shevchenko >> wrote: >>> >>> Oops. What is the proposed fix for that? It seems we can't rebase >>> published branches. >> >>It's unfixable without a

Re: linux-next: Signed-off-by missing for commit in the drivers-x86 tree

On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 3:08 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi Andy, > > On Fri, 1 Jun 2018 14:40:35 +0300 Andy Shevchenko > wrote: >> >> Oops. What is the proposed fix for that? It seems we can't rebase >> published branches. > > It's unfixable without a rebase, so you could instead consider it

Re: linux-next: Signed-off-by missing for commit in the drivers-x86 tree

On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 3:08 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi Andy, > > On Fri, 1 Jun 2018 14:40:35 +0300 Andy Shevchenko > wrote: >> >> Oops. What is the proposed fix for that? It seems we can't rebase >> published branches. > > It's unfixable without a rebase, so you could instead consider it

Re: linux-next: Signed-off-by missing for commit in the drivers-x86 tree

On June 1, 2018 5:08:32 AM PDT, Stephen Rothwell wrote: >Hi Andy, > >On Fri, 1 Jun 2018 14:40:35 +0300 Andy Shevchenko > wrote: >> >> Oops. What is the proposed fix for that? It seems we can't rebase >> published branches. > >It's unfixable without a rebase, so you could instead consider it an

Re: linux-next: Signed-off-by missing for commit in the drivers-x86 tree

On June 1, 2018 5:08:32 AM PDT, Stephen Rothwell wrote: >Hi Andy, > >On Fri, 1 Jun 2018 14:40:35 +0300 Andy Shevchenko > wrote: >> >> Oops. What is the proposed fix for that? It seems we can't rebase >> published branches. > >It's unfixable without a rebase, so you could instead consider it an

Re: linux-next: Signed-off-by missing for commit in the drivers-x86 tree

On June 1, 2018 5:08:32 AM PDT, Stephen Rothwell wrote: >Hi Andy, > >On Fri, 1 Jun 2018 14:40:35 +0300 Andy Shevchenko > wrote: >> >> Oops. What is the proposed fix for that? It seems we can't rebase >> published branches. > >It's unfixable without a rebase, so you could instead consider it an

Re: linux-next: Signed-off-by missing for commit in the drivers-x86 tree

On June 1, 2018 5:08:32 AM PDT, Stephen Rothwell wrote: >Hi Andy, > >On Fri, 1 Jun 2018 14:40:35 +0300 Andy Shevchenko > wrote: >> >> Oops. What is the proposed fix for that? It seems we can't rebase >> published branches. > >It's unfixable without a rebase, so you could instead consider it an

Re: linux-next: Signed-off-by missing for commit in the drivers-x86 tree

Hi Andy, On Fri, 1 Jun 2018 14:40:35 +0300 Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > Oops. What is the proposed fix for that? It seems we can't rebase > published branches. It's unfixable without a rebase, so you could instead consider it an opportunity to improve your processes for the future. :-) --

Re: linux-next: Signed-off-by missing for commit in the drivers-x86 tree

Hi Andy, On Fri, 1 Jun 2018 14:40:35 +0300 Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > Oops. What is the proposed fix for that? It seems we can't rebase > published branches. It's unfixable without a rebase, so you could instead consider it an opportunity to improve your processes for the future. :-) --

Re: linux-next: Signed-off-by missing for commit in the drivers-x86 tree

On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 2:36 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi all, > > Commit > > bba074f926d1 ("platform/x86: silead_dmi: Add entry for Chuwi Hi8 S806_206 > tablet touchscreen") > > is missing a Signed-off-by from its author. Oops. What is the proposed fix for that? It seems we can't rebase

Re: linux-next: Signed-off-by missing for commit in the drivers-x86 tree

On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 2:36 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi all, > > Commit > > bba074f926d1 ("platform/x86: silead_dmi: Add entry for Chuwi Hi8 S806_206 > tablet touchscreen") > > is missing a Signed-off-by from its author. Oops. What is the proposed fix for that? It seems we can't rebase

linux-next: Signed-off-by missing for commit in the drivers-x86 tree

Hi all, Commit bba074f926d1 ("platform/x86: silead_dmi: Add entry for Chuwi Hi8 S806_206 tablet touchscreen") is missing a Signed-off-by from its author. -- Cheers, Stephen Rothwell pgpFtHG0Jixuv.pgp Description: OpenPGP digital signature

linux-next: Signed-off-by missing for commit in the drivers-x86 tree

Hi all, Commit bba074f926d1 ("platform/x86: silead_dmi: Add entry for Chuwi Hi8 S806_206 tablet touchscreen") is missing a Signed-off-by from its author. -- Cheers, Stephen Rothwell pgpFtHG0Jixuv.pgp Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: linux-next: Signed-off-by missing for commit in the drivers-x86 tree

On Sat, Aug 05, 2017 at 02:58:29PM -0700, Darren Hart wrote: > On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 08:50:06AM -0700, Darren Hart wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 02, 2017 at 06:06:20PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 5:28 PM, Stephen Rothwell > > > wrote: > > > > > > >

Re: linux-next: Signed-off-by missing for commit in the drivers-x86 tree

On Sat, Aug 05, 2017 at 02:58:29PM -0700, Darren Hart wrote: > On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 08:50:06AM -0700, Darren Hart wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 02, 2017 at 06:06:20PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 5:28 PM, Stephen Rothwell > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > I would say that if

Re: linux-next: Signed-off-by missing for commit in the drivers-x86 tree

+Olof and Arnd, I am curious how you handle the situation below as a maintainer team. This problem arose from a new for-next test which triggers on the committer not having a SOB tag in the patch (which can happen when a shared branch is rebased to drop a patch). Do you have a branch that you

Re: linux-next: Signed-off-by missing for commit in the drivers-x86 tree

+Olof and Arnd, I am curious how you handle the situation below as a maintainer team. This problem arose from a new for-next test which triggers on the committer not having a SOB tag in the patch (which can happen when a shared branch is rebased to drop a patch). Do you have a branch that you

Re: linux-next: Signed-off-by missing for commit in the drivers-x86 tree

On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 08:50:06AM -0700, Darren Hart wrote: > On Wed, Aug 02, 2017 at 06:06:20PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 5:28 PM, Stephen Rothwell > > wrote: > > > > > > I would say that if you rebase someone's commit(s), then you are on

Re: linux-next: Signed-off-by missing for commit in the drivers-x86 tree

On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 08:50:06AM -0700, Darren Hart wrote: > On Wed, Aug 02, 2017 at 06:06:20PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 5:28 PM, Stephen Rothwell > > wrote: > > > > > > I would say that if you rebase someone's commit(s), then you are on the > > > "patch's

Re: linux-next: Signed-off-by missing for commit in the drivers-x86 tree

On Fri, Aug 04, 2017 at 10:44:31AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Linus Torvalds writes: > > > On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 5:28 PM, Stephen Rothwell > > wrote: > >> > >> I would say that if you rebase someone's commit(s), then you are on the >

Re: linux-next: Signed-off-by missing for commit in the drivers-x86 tree

On Fri, Aug 04, 2017 at 10:44:31AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Linus Torvalds writes: > > > On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 5:28 PM, Stephen Rothwell > > wrote: > >> > >> I would say that if you rebase someone's commit(s), then you are on the > >> "patch's delivery path" and so should add a

Re: linux-next: Signed-off-by missing for commit in the drivers-x86 tree

Linus Torvalds writes: > On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 5:28 PM, Stephen Rothwell > wrote: >> >> I would say that if you rebase someone's commit(s), then you are on the >> "patch's delivery path" and so should add a Signed-off-by tag. > > Yeah, I

Re: linux-next: Signed-off-by missing for commit in the drivers-x86 tree

Linus Torvalds writes: > On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 5:28 PM, Stephen Rothwell > wrote: >> >> I would say that if you rebase someone's commit(s), then you are on the >> "patch's delivery path" and so should add a Signed-off-by tag. > > Yeah, I agree. Rebasing really is pretty much the exact same

Re: linux-next: Signed-off-by missing for commit in the drivers-x86 tree

On Wed, Aug 02, 2017 at 06:06:20PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 5:28 PM, Stephen Rothwell > wrote: > > > > I would say that if you rebase someone's commit(s), then you are on the > > "patch's delivery path" and so should add a Signed-off-by tag. >

Re: linux-next: Signed-off-by missing for commit in the drivers-x86 tree

On Wed, Aug 02, 2017 at 06:06:20PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 5:28 PM, Stephen Rothwell > wrote: > > > > I would say that if you rebase someone's commit(s), then you are on the > > "patch's delivery path" and so should add a Signed-off-by tag. > > Yeah, I agree.

Re: linux-next: Signed-off-by missing for commit in the drivers-x86 tree

Hi Andy, On Thu, 03 Aug 2017 11:17:03 +0300 Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > I just checked what we have in our for-next branch and mentioned commits > have mine SoB. Should they have something else? In Darren's response it became clear that even though you had

Re: linux-next: Signed-off-by missing for commit in the drivers-x86 tree

Hi Andy, On Thu, 03 Aug 2017 11:17:03 +0300 Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > I just checked what we have in our for-next branch and mentioned commits > have mine SoB. Should they have something else? In Darren's response it became clear that even though you had initially commited the patches, he had

Re: linux-next: Signed-off-by missing for commit in the drivers-x86 tree

On Thu, 2017-08-03 at 06:37 +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi Darren, > > Commits > >   890f658c101d ("platform/x86: peaq-wmi: silence a static checker > warning") >   6d8d55626296 ("platform/x86: msi-wmi: remove unnecessary static in > msi_wmi_notify()") >   cd0223c64c60 ("platform/x86:

Re: linux-next: Signed-off-by missing for commit in the drivers-x86 tree

On Thu, 2017-08-03 at 06:37 +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi Darren, > > Commits > >   890f658c101d ("platform/x86: peaq-wmi: silence a static checker > warning") >   6d8d55626296 ("platform/x86: msi-wmi: remove unnecessary static in > msi_wmi_notify()") >   cd0223c64c60 ("platform/x86:

Re: linux-next: Signed-off-by missing for commit in the drivers-x86 tree

On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 5:28 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > I would say that if you rebase someone's commit(s), then you are on the > "patch's delivery path" and so should add a Signed-off-by tag. Yeah, I agree. Rebasing really is pretty much the exact same thing as

Re: linux-next: Signed-off-by missing for commit in the drivers-x86 tree

On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 5:28 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > I would say that if you rebase someone's commit(s), then you are on the > "patch's delivery path" and so should add a Signed-off-by tag. Yeah, I agree. Rebasing really is pretty much the exact same thing as applying a patch. > "git

Re: linux-next: Signed-off-by missing for commit in the drivers-x86 tree

Hi Darren, On Wed, 2 Aug 2017 16:57:40 -0700 Darren Hart wrote: > > Is this a new check Stephen? Yes :-) > Is there any statement regarding maintainer teams that we must abide by > this? e.g. any time a rebase in a testing branch is made, the > maintainer must also

Re: linux-next: Signed-off-by missing for commit in the drivers-x86 tree

Hi Darren, On Wed, 2 Aug 2017 16:57:40 -0700 Darren Hart wrote: > > Is this a new check Stephen? Yes :-) > Is there any statement regarding maintainer teams that we must abide by > this? e.g. any time a rebase in a testing branch is made, the > maintainer must also ensure a SOB is on each

Re: linux-next: Signed-off-by missing for commit in the drivers-x86 tree

On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 06:37:43AM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi Darren, > > Commits > > 890f658c101d ("platform/x86: peaq-wmi: silence a static checker warning") > 6d8d55626296 ("platform/x86: msi-wmi: remove unnecessary static in > msi_wmi_notify()") > cd0223c64c60 ("platform/x86:

Re: linux-next: Signed-off-by missing for commit in the drivers-x86 tree

On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 06:37:43AM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi Darren, > > Commits > > 890f658c101d ("platform/x86: peaq-wmi: silence a static checker warning") > 6d8d55626296 ("platform/x86: msi-wmi: remove unnecessary static in > msi_wmi_notify()") > cd0223c64c60 ("platform/x86:

linux-next: Signed-off-by missing for commit in the drivers-x86 tree

Hi Darren, Commits 890f658c101d ("platform/x86: peaq-wmi: silence a static checker warning") 6d8d55626296 ("platform/x86: msi-wmi: remove unnecessary static in msi_wmi_notify()") cd0223c64c60 ("platform/x86: ibm_rtl: remove unnecessary static in ibm_rtl_write()") are missing

linux-next: Signed-off-by missing for commit in the drivers-x86 tree

Hi Darren, Commits 890f658c101d ("platform/x86: peaq-wmi: silence a static checker warning") 6d8d55626296 ("platform/x86: msi-wmi: remove unnecessary static in msi_wmi_notify()") cd0223c64c60 ("platform/x86: ibm_rtl: remove unnecessary static in ibm_rtl_write()") are missing