Subject: Re: linux-next: Signed-off-by missing for commits in the xfs tree

From: "Darrick J. Wong" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2021 10:12:08 -0700

On Mon, Jun 21, 2021 at 08:26:56AM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> Commits
> 
>   742140d2a486 ("xfs: xfs_log_force_lsn isn't passed a LSN")
>   e30fbb337045 ("xfs: Fix CIL throttle hang when CIL space used going backwards")
>   feb616896031 ("xfs: journal IO cache flush reductions")
>   6a5c6f5ef0a4 ("xfs: remove need_start_rec parameter from xlog_write()")
>   d7693a7f4ef9 ("xfs: CIL checkpoint flushes caches unconditionally")
>   e45cc747a6fd ("xfs: async blkdev cache flush")
>   9b845604a4d5 ("xfs: remove xfs_blkdev_issue_flush")
>   25f25648e57c ("xfs: separate CIL commit record IO")
>   a6a65fef5ef8 ("xfs: log stripe roundoff is a property of the log")
> 
> are missing a Signed-off-by from their committers.

<sigh> Ok, I'll rebase the branch again to fix the paperwork errors.

For future reference, if I want to continue accepting pull requests from
other XFS developers, what are the applicable standards for adding the
tree maintainer's (aka my) S-o-B tags?  I can't add my own S-o-Bs after
the fact without rewriting the branch history and changing the commit
ids (which would lose the signed tag), so I guess that means the person
sending the pull request has to add my S-o-B for me?  Which also doesn't
make sense?

--D

> -- 
> Cheers,
> Stephen Rothwell