Re: linux-next: Signed-off-by missing for commit in the xfs tree
From: Dave Chinner
Date: Mon Oct 03 2022 - 18:21:24 EST
On Tue, Oct 04, 2022 at 07:23:02AM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
> ece9d1c54c23 ("xfs: rearrange the logic and remove the broken comment for xfs_dir2_isxx")
> 7ee7a280ea9d ("xfs: trim the mapp array accordingly in xfs_da_grow_inode_int")
> are missing a Signed-off-by from their author.
I just pulled them w/ b4 via their msg-ids. Have a look at the email
And the commit information from the XFS tree says:
author Stephen Zhang <starzhangzsd@xxxxxxxxx> 2022-09-26 10:36:11 +1000
committer Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2022-09-26 10:36:11 +1000
commit ece9d1c54c23c316219c19c4c7091495007e149b (patch)
parent 7ee7a280ea9d3208c075151b06190630b8c20775 (diff)
xfs: rearrange the logic and remove the broken comment for xfs_dir2_isxx
xfs_dir2_isleaf is used to see if the directory is a single-leaf
form directory instead, as commented right above the function.
Besides getting rid of the broken comment, we rearrange the logic by
converting everything over to standard formatting and conventions,
at the same time, to make it easier to understand and self
Signed-off-by: Shida Zhang <zhangshida@xxxxxxxxxx>
Reviewed-by: Darrick J. Wong <djwong@xxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
The commit matches exactly what was sent to the list. It's just
that the patch was sent from a personal email address with a
Since when has that been an issue? I -personally- have been doing
this for well over a decade and I'm pretty sure there are lots of
other people who also do this.
Hence if this is wrong, then we've got a tooling problem with b4.
Why does b4 allow this rather than warn/fail if it's not actually
allowed in the linux-next tree?