Re: [Intel-gfx] linux-next: Signed-off-by missing for commit in the drm-intel tree
On Wed, Aug 11, 2021 at 11:48:00AM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 11, 2021 at 10:16:41AM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote:
> > On Tue, 10 Aug 2021, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > > On Mon, Aug 09, 2021 at 09:19:39AM -0700, Matt Roper wrote:
> > >> On Mon, Aug 09, 2021 at 04:05:59PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > >> > On Fri, Aug 06, 2021 at 09:36:56AM +0300, Joonas Lahtinen wrote:
> > >> > > Hi Matt,
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Always use the dim tooling when applying patches, it will do the
> > >> > > right
> > >> > > thing with regards to adding the S-o-b.
> > >> >
> > >> > fd.o server rejects any pushes that haven't been done by dim, so how
> > >> > did
> > >> > this get through?
> > >>
> > >> I definitely used dim for all of these patches, but I'm not sure how I
> > >> lost my s-o-b on this one. Maybe when I edited the commit message after
> > >> 'dim extract-tags' I accidentally deleted an extra line when I removed
> > >> the extract-tags marker? It's the only patch where the line is missing,
> > >> so it's almost certainly human error on my part rather than something
> > >> dim did wrong.
> > >
> > > Yeah that's an expected failure model, and dim is supposed to catch that
> > > by rechecking for sobs when you push. See dim_push_branch ->
> > > checkpatch_commit_push_range in dim. So you can hand-edit stuff however
> > > you want, dim /should/ catch it when pushing. That it didn't is kinda
> > > confusing and I'd like to know why that slipped through.
> >
> > One of the failures that happened here was that the commit was part of a
> > topic branch that was merged and pushed directly. All merges should
> > happen via pull requests on the list, and applied (preferrably by
> > maintainers or at least with their acks recorded on the merge) using dim
> > apply-pull which should also have the checks.
>
> Ah yes if the merge is applied directly instead of using apply-pull then
> that's not good. I guess that's why we have the rule that only maintainers
> should handle topic branches ...
Hmm, I wasn't aware of this rule. I double checked with Rodrigo before
doing so and he thought merging a branch directly to intel-next and
gt-next with the foundational definitions and tables should be an okay
approach here (and he did an extra backmerge in preparation to make sure
it went smoothly).
Anyway, definitely my fault; I'll keep this in mind for the future.
Matt
>
> Not sure how we can fix this in dim? Maybe a check whether the patches
> your pushing contain a merge commit, which prompts an additional query
> like
>
> "Merge commits should only be done by repo maintainers, not committers.
> Confirm that you are a maintainer of $repo?"
>
> It's not the first time this slipped through and caused some fun. Similar
> to how we have the confirmation check if you push a lot of patches.
>
> Thoughts?
> -Daniel
>
>
> >
> >
> > BR,
> > Jani.
> >
> > >
> > >> > Matt, can you pls figure out and type up the patch to
> > >> > plug that hole?
> > >>
> > >> Are you referring to a patch for dim here? The i915 patch has already
> > >> landed, so we can't change its commit message now.
> > >
> > > Yeah dim, not drm-intel, that can't be fixed anymore because it's all
> > > baked in.
> > > -Daniel
> > >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Matt
> > >>
> > >> >
> > >> > Thanks, Daniel
> > >> >
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Regards, Joonas
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Quoting Stephen Rothwell (2021-07-15 07:18:54)
> > >> > > > Hi all,
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > Commit
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > db47fe727e1f ("drm/i915/step:
> > >> > > > s/_revid_tbl/_revids")
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > is missing a Signed-off-by from its committer.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > --
> > >> > > > Cheers,
> > >> > > > Stephen Rothwell
> > >> >
> > >> > --
> > >> > Daniel Vetter
> > >> > Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
> > >> > http://blog.ffwll.ch
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> Matt Roper
> > >> Graphics Software Engineer
> > >> VTT-OSGC Platform Enablement
> > >> Intel Corporation
> > >> (916) 356-2795
> >
> > --
> > Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Graphics Center
>
> --
> Daniel Vetter
> Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
> http://blog.ffwll.ch
--
Matt Roper
Graphics Software Engineer
VTT-OSGC Platform Enablement
Intel Corporation
(916) 356-2795
Re: [Intel-gfx] linux-next: Signed-off-by missing for commit in the drm-intel tree
On Wed, Aug 11, 2021 at 10:16:41AM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Aug 2021, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 09, 2021 at 09:19:39AM -0700, Matt Roper wrote:
> >> On Mon, Aug 09, 2021 at 04:05:59PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> >> > On Fri, Aug 06, 2021 at 09:36:56AM +0300, Joonas Lahtinen wrote:
> >> > > Hi Matt,
> >> > >
> >> > > Always use the dim tooling when applying patches, it will do the right
> >> > > thing with regards to adding the S-o-b.
> >> >
> >> > fd.o server rejects any pushes that haven't been done by dim, so how did
> >> > this get through?
> >>
> >> I definitely used dim for all of these patches, but I'm not sure how I
> >> lost my s-o-b on this one. Maybe when I edited the commit message after
> >> 'dim extract-tags' I accidentally deleted an extra line when I removed
> >> the extract-tags marker? It's the only patch where the line is missing,
> >> so it's almost certainly human error on my part rather than something
> >> dim did wrong.
> >
> > Yeah that's an expected failure model, and dim is supposed to catch that
> > by rechecking for sobs when you push. See dim_push_branch ->
> > checkpatch_commit_push_range in dim. So you can hand-edit stuff however
> > you want, dim /should/ catch it when pushing. That it didn't is kinda
> > confusing and I'd like to know why that slipped through.
>
> One of the failures that happened here was that the commit was part of a
> topic branch that was merged and pushed directly. All merges should
> happen via pull requests on the list, and applied (preferrably by
> maintainers or at least with their acks recorded on the merge) using dim
> apply-pull which should also have the checks.
My bad. I have asked Matt to go ahead with the topic branch.
So it is an ack, which didn't get recorded.
But I didn't expect this case of missing dim checks with this flow.
Sorry,
Rodrigo.
>
>
> BR,
> Jani.
>
> >
> >> > Matt, can you pls figure out and type up the patch to
> >> > plug that hole?
> >>
> >> Are you referring to a patch for dim here? The i915 patch has already
> >> landed, so we can't change its commit message now.
> >
> > Yeah dim, not drm-intel, that can't be fixed anymore because it's all
> > baked in.
> > -Daniel
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> Matt
> >>
> >> >
> >> > Thanks, Daniel
> >> >
> >> > >
> >> > > Regards, Joonas
> >> > >
> >> > > Quoting Stephen Rothwell (2021-07-15 07:18:54)
> >> > > > Hi all,
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Commit
> >> > > >
> >> > > > db47fe727e1f ("drm/i915/step:
> >> > > > s/_revid_tbl/_revids")
> >> > > >
> >> > > > is missing a Signed-off-by from its committer.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > --
> >> > > > Cheers,
> >> > > > Stephen Rothwell
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > Daniel Vetter
> >> > Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
> >> > http://blog.ffwll.ch
> >>
> >> --
> >> Matt Roper
> >> Graphics Software Engineer
> >> VTT-OSGC Platform Enablement
> >> Intel Corporation
> >> (916) 356-2795
>
> --
> Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Graphics Center
Re: [Intel-gfx] linux-next: Signed-off-by missing for commit in the drm-intel tree
On Wed, 11 Aug 2021, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 11, 2021 at 10:16:41AM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote:
>> On Tue, 10 Aug 2021, Daniel Vetter wrote:
>> > On Mon, Aug 09, 2021 at 09:19:39AM -0700, Matt Roper wrote:
>> >> On Mon, Aug 09, 2021 at 04:05:59PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
>> >> > On Fri, Aug 06, 2021 at 09:36:56AM +0300, Joonas Lahtinen wrote:
>> >> > > Hi Matt,
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Always use the dim tooling when applying patches, it will do the right
>> >> > > thing with regards to adding the S-o-b.
>> >> >
>> >> > fd.o server rejects any pushes that haven't been done by dim, so how did
>> >> > this get through?
>> >>
>> >> I definitely used dim for all of these patches, but I'm not sure how I
>> >> lost my s-o-b on this one. Maybe when I edited the commit message after
>> >> 'dim extract-tags' I accidentally deleted an extra line when I removed
>> >> the extract-tags marker? It's the only patch where the line is missing,
>> >> so it's almost certainly human error on my part rather than something
>> >> dim did wrong.
>> >
>> > Yeah that's an expected failure model, and dim is supposed to catch that
>> > by rechecking for sobs when you push. See dim_push_branch ->
>> > checkpatch_commit_push_range in dim. So you can hand-edit stuff however
>> > you want, dim /should/ catch it when pushing. That it didn't is kinda
>> > confusing and I'd like to know why that slipped through.
>>
>> One of the failures that happened here was that the commit was part of a
>> topic branch that was merged and pushed directly. All merges should
>> happen via pull requests on the list, and applied (preferrably by
>> maintainers or at least with their acks recorded on the merge) using dim
>> apply-pull which should also have the checks.
>
> Ah yes if the merge is applied directly instead of using apply-pull then
> that's not good. I guess that's why we have the rule that only maintainers
> should handle topic branches ...
>
> Not sure how we can fix this in dim? Maybe a check whether the patches
> your pushing contain a merge commit, which prompts an additional query
> like
>
> "Merge commits should only be done by repo maintainers, not committers.
> Confirm that you are a maintainer of $repo?"
>
> It's not the first time this slipped through and caused some fun. Similar
> to how we have the confirmation check if you push a lot of patches.
I sent an untested patch to this effect. It's a start. I guess there
could be more detailed automated checks, but frankly dim is getting
pretty complicated for a bash script. Or because it's a bash script.
BR,
Jani.
>
> Thoughts?
> -Daniel
>
>
>>
>>
>> BR,
>> Jani.
>>
>> >
>> >> > Matt, can you pls figure out and type up the patch to
>> >> > plug that hole?
>> >>
>> >> Are you referring to a patch for dim here? The i915 patch has already
>> >> landed, so we can't change its commit message now.
>> >
>> > Yeah dim, not drm-intel, that can't be fixed anymore because it's all
>> > baked in.
>> > -Daniel
>> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Matt
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > Thanks, Daniel
>> >> >
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Regards, Joonas
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Quoting Stephen Rothwell (2021-07-15 07:18:54)
>> >> > > > Hi all,
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > Commit
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > db47fe727e1f ("drm/i915/step:
>> >> > > > s/_revid_tbl/_revids")
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > is missing a Signed-off-by from its committer.
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > --
>> >> > > > Cheers,
>> >> > > > Stephen Rothwell
>> >> >
>> >> > --
>> >> > Daniel Vetter
>> >> > Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
>> >> > http://blog.ffwll.ch
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Matt Roper
>> >> Graphics Software Engineer
>> >> VTT-OSGC Platform Enablement
>> >> Intel Corporation
>> >> (916) 356-2795
>>
>> --
>> Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Graphics Center
--
Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Graphics Center
Re: [Intel-gfx] linux-next: Signed-off-by missing for commit in the drm-intel tree
On Wed, Aug 11, 2021 at 10:16:41AM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Aug 2021, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 09, 2021 at 09:19:39AM -0700, Matt Roper wrote:
> >> On Mon, Aug 09, 2021 at 04:05:59PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> >> > On Fri, Aug 06, 2021 at 09:36:56AM +0300, Joonas Lahtinen wrote:
> >> > > Hi Matt,
> >> > >
> >> > > Always use the dim tooling when applying patches, it will do the right
> >> > > thing with regards to adding the S-o-b.
> >> >
> >> > fd.o server rejects any pushes that haven't been done by dim, so how did
> >> > this get through?
> >>
> >> I definitely used dim for all of these patches, but I'm not sure how I
> >> lost my s-o-b on this one. Maybe when I edited the commit message after
> >> 'dim extract-tags' I accidentally deleted an extra line when I removed
> >> the extract-tags marker? It's the only patch where the line is missing,
> >> so it's almost certainly human error on my part rather than something
> >> dim did wrong.
> >
> > Yeah that's an expected failure model, and dim is supposed to catch that
> > by rechecking for sobs when you push. See dim_push_branch ->
> > checkpatch_commit_push_range in dim. So you can hand-edit stuff however
> > you want, dim /should/ catch it when pushing. That it didn't is kinda
> > confusing and I'd like to know why that slipped through.
>
> One of the failures that happened here was that the commit was part of a
> topic branch that was merged and pushed directly. All merges should
> happen via pull requests on the list, and applied (preferrably by
> maintainers or at least with their acks recorded on the merge) using dim
> apply-pull which should also have the checks.
Ah yes if the merge is applied directly instead of using apply-pull then
that's not good. I guess that's why we have the rule that only maintainers
should handle topic branches ...
Not sure how we can fix this in dim? Maybe a check whether the patches
your pushing contain a merge commit, which prompts an additional query
like
"Merge commits should only be done by repo maintainers, not committers.
Confirm that you are a maintainer of $repo?"
It's not the first time this slipped through and caused some fun. Similar
to how we have the confirmation check if you push a lot of patches.
Thoughts?
-Daniel
>
>
> BR,
> Jani.
>
> >
> >> > Matt, can you pls figure out and type up the patch to
> >> > plug that hole?
> >>
> >> Are you referring to a patch for dim here? The i915 patch has already
> >> landed, so we can't change its commit message now.
> >
> > Yeah dim, not drm-intel, that can't be fixed anymore because it's all
> > baked in.
> > -Daniel
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> Matt
> >>
> >> >
> >> > Thanks, Daniel
> >> >
> >> > >
> >> > > Regards, Joonas
> >> > >
> >> > > Quoting Stephen Rothwell (2021-07-15 07:18:54)
> >> > > > Hi all,
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Commit
> >> > > >
> >> > > > db47fe727e1f ("drm/i915/step:
> >> > > > s/_revid_tbl/_revids")
> >> > > >
> >> > > > is missing a Signed-off-by from its committer.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > --
> >> > > > Cheers,
> >> > > > Stephen Rothwell
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > Daniel Vetter
> >> > Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
> >> > http://blog.ffwll.ch
> >>
> >> --
> >> Matt Roper
> >> Graphics Software Engineer
> >> VTT-OSGC Platform Enablement
> >> Intel Corporation
> >> (916) 356-2795
>
> --
> Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Graphics Center
--
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
http://blog.ffwll.ch
Re: [Intel-gfx] linux-next: Signed-off-by missing for commit in the drm-intel tree
On Tue, 10 Aug 2021, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 09, 2021 at 09:19:39AM -0700, Matt Roper wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 09, 2021 at 04:05:59PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
>> > On Fri, Aug 06, 2021 at 09:36:56AM +0300, Joonas Lahtinen wrote:
>> > > Hi Matt,
>> > >
>> > > Always use the dim tooling when applying patches, it will do the right
>> > > thing with regards to adding the S-o-b.
>> >
>> > fd.o server rejects any pushes that haven't been done by dim, so how did
>> > this get through?
>>
>> I definitely used dim for all of these patches, but I'm not sure how I
>> lost my s-o-b on this one. Maybe when I edited the commit message after
>> 'dim extract-tags' I accidentally deleted an extra line when I removed
>> the extract-tags marker? It's the only patch where the line is missing,
>> so it's almost certainly human error on my part rather than something
>> dim did wrong.
>
> Yeah that's an expected failure model, and dim is supposed to catch that
> by rechecking for sobs when you push. See dim_push_branch ->
> checkpatch_commit_push_range in dim. So you can hand-edit stuff however
> you want, dim /should/ catch it when pushing. That it didn't is kinda
> confusing and I'd like to know why that slipped through.
One of the failures that happened here was that the commit was part of a
topic branch that was merged and pushed directly. All merges should
happen via pull requests on the list, and applied (preferrably by
maintainers or at least with their acks recorded on the merge) using dim
apply-pull which should also have the checks.
BR,
Jani.
>
>> > Matt, can you pls figure out and type up the patch to
>> > plug that hole?
>>
>> Are you referring to a patch for dim here? The i915 patch has already
>> landed, so we can't change its commit message now.
>
> Yeah dim, not drm-intel, that can't be fixed anymore because it's all
> baked in.
> -Daniel
>
>>
>>
>> Matt
>>
>> >
>> > Thanks, Daniel
>> >
>> > >
>> > > Regards, Joonas
>> > >
>> > > Quoting Stephen Rothwell (2021-07-15 07:18:54)
>> > > > Hi all,
>> > > >
>> > > > Commit
>> > > >
>> > > > db47fe727e1f ("drm/i915/step:
>> > > > s/_revid_tbl/_revids")
>> > > >
>> > > > is missing a Signed-off-by from its committer.
>> > > >
>> > > > --
>> > > > Cheers,
>> > > > Stephen Rothwell
>> >
>> > --
>> > Daniel Vetter
>> > Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
>> > http://blog.ffwll.ch
>>
>> --
>> Matt Roper
>> Graphics Software Engineer
>> VTT-OSGC Platform Enablement
>> Intel Corporation
>> (916) 356-2795
--
Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Graphics Center
Re: [Intel-gfx] linux-next: Signed-off-by missing for commit in the drm-intel tree
+ Dave as FYI
Quoting Daniel Vetter (2021-08-10 09:27:25)
> On Mon, Aug 09, 2021 at 09:19:39AM -0700, Matt Roper wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 09, 2021 at 04:05:59PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > > On Fri, Aug 06, 2021 at 09:36:56AM +0300, Joonas Lahtinen wrote:
> > > > Hi Matt,
> > > >
> > > > Always use the dim tooling when applying patches, it will do the right
> > > > thing with regards to adding the S-o-b.
> > >
> > > fd.o server rejects any pushes that haven't been done by dim, so how did
> > > this get through?
> >
> > I definitely used dim for all of these patches, but I'm not sure how I
> > lost my s-o-b on this one. Maybe when I edited the commit message after
> > 'dim extract-tags' I accidentally deleted an extra line when I removed
> > the extract-tags marker? It's the only patch where the line is missing,
> > so it's almost certainly human error on my part rather than something
> > dim did wrong.
>
> Yeah that's an expected failure model, and dim is supposed to catch that
> by rechecking for sobs when you push. See dim_push_branch ->
> checkpatch_commit_push_range in dim. So you can hand-edit stuff however
> you want, dim /should/ catch it when pushing. That it didn't is kinda
> confusing and I'd like to know why that slipped through.
>
> > > Matt, can you pls figure out and type up the patch to
> > > plug that hole?
> >
> > Are you referring to a patch for dim here? The i915 patch has already
> > landed, so we can't change its commit message now.
>
> Yeah dim, not drm-intel, that can't be fixed anymore because it's all
> baked in.
> -Daniel
>
> >
> >
> > Matt
> >
> > >
> > > Thanks, Daniel
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Regards, Joonas
> > > >
> > > > Quoting Stephen Rothwell (2021-07-15 07:18:54)
> > > > > Hi all,
> > > > >
> > > > > Commit
> > > > >
> > > > > db47fe727e1f ("drm/i915/step:
> > > > > s/_revid_tbl/_revids")
> > > > >
> > > > > is missing a Signed-off-by from its committer.
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > Stephen Rothwell
> > >
> > > --
> > > Daniel Vetter
> > > Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
> > > http://blog.ffwll.ch
> >
> > --
> > Matt Roper
> > Graphics Software Engineer
> > VTT-OSGC Platform Enablement
> > Intel Corporation
> > (916) 356-2795
>
> --
> Daniel Vetter
> Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
> http://blog.ffwll.ch
Re: [Intel-gfx] linux-next: Signed-off-by missing for commit in the drm-intel tree
On Mon, Aug 09, 2021 at 09:19:39AM -0700, Matt Roper wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 09, 2021 at 04:05:59PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 06, 2021 at 09:36:56AM +0300, Joonas Lahtinen wrote:
> > > Hi Matt,
> > >
> > > Always use the dim tooling when applying patches, it will do the right
> > > thing with regards to adding the S-o-b.
> >
> > fd.o server rejects any pushes that haven't been done by dim, so how did
> > this get through?
>
> I definitely used dim for all of these patches, but I'm not sure how I
> lost my s-o-b on this one. Maybe when I edited the commit message after
> 'dim extract-tags' I accidentally deleted an extra line when I removed
> the extract-tags marker? It's the only patch where the line is missing,
> so it's almost certainly human error on my part rather than something
> dim did wrong.
Yeah that's an expected failure model, and dim is supposed to catch that
by rechecking for sobs when you push. See dim_push_branch ->
checkpatch_commit_push_range in dim. So you can hand-edit stuff however
you want, dim /should/ catch it when pushing. That it didn't is kinda
confusing and I'd like to know why that slipped through.
> > Matt, can you pls figure out and type up the patch to
> > plug that hole?
>
> Are you referring to a patch for dim here? The i915 patch has already
> landed, so we can't change its commit message now.
Yeah dim, not drm-intel, that can't be fixed anymore because it's all
baked in.
-Daniel
>
>
> Matt
>
> >
> > Thanks, Daniel
> >
> > >
> > > Regards, Joonas
> > >
> > > Quoting Stephen Rothwell (2021-07-15 07:18:54)
> > > > Hi all,
> > > >
> > > > Commit
> > > >
> > > > db47fe727e1f ("drm/i915/step:
> > > > s/_revid_tbl/_revids")
> > > >
> > > > is missing a Signed-off-by from its committer.
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Cheers,
> > > > Stephen Rothwell
> >
> > --
> > Daniel Vetter
> > Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
> > http://blog.ffwll.ch
>
> --
> Matt Roper
> Graphics Software Engineer
> VTT-OSGC Platform Enablement
> Intel Corporation
> (916) 356-2795
--
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
http://blog.ffwll.ch
Re: [Intel-gfx] linux-next: Signed-off-by missing for commit in the drm-intel tree
On Mon, Aug 09, 2021 at 04:05:59PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 06, 2021 at 09:36:56AM +0300, Joonas Lahtinen wrote:
> > Hi Matt,
> >
> > Always use the dim tooling when applying patches, it will do the right
> > thing with regards to adding the S-o-b.
>
> fd.o server rejects any pushes that haven't been done by dim, so how did
> this get through?
I definitely used dim for all of these patches, but I'm not sure how I
lost my s-o-b on this one. Maybe when I edited the commit message after
'dim extract-tags' I accidentally deleted an extra line when I removed
the extract-tags marker? It's the only patch where the line is missing,
so it's almost certainly human error on my part rather than something
dim did wrong.
> Matt, can you pls figure out and type up the patch to
> plug that hole?
Are you referring to a patch for dim here? The i915 patch has already
landed, so we can't change its commit message now.
Matt
>
> Thanks, Daniel
>
> >
> > Regards, Joonas
> >
> > Quoting Stephen Rothwell (2021-07-15 07:18:54)
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > Commit
> > >
> > > db47fe727e1f ("drm/i915/step: s/_revid_tbl/_revids")
> > >
> > > is missing a Signed-off-by from its committer.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Cheers,
> > > Stephen Rothwell
>
> --
> Daniel Vetter
> Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
> http://blog.ffwll.ch
--
Matt Roper
Graphics Software Engineer
VTT-OSGC Platform Enablement
Intel Corporation
(916) 356-2795
Re: [Intel-gfx] linux-next: Signed-off-by missing for commit in the drm-intel tree
On Fri, Aug 06, 2021 at 09:36:56AM +0300, Joonas Lahtinen wrote:
> Hi Matt,
>
> Always use the dim tooling when applying patches, it will do the right
> thing with regards to adding the S-o-b.
fd.o server rejects any pushes that haven't been done by dim, so how did
this get through? Matt, can you pls figure out and type up the patch to
plug that hole?
Thanks, Daniel
>
> Regards, Joonas
>
> Quoting Stephen Rothwell (2021-07-15 07:18:54)
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Commit
> >
> > db47fe727e1f ("drm/i915/step: s/_revid_tbl/_revids")
> >
> > is missing a Signed-off-by from its committer.
> >
> > --
> > Cheers,
> > Stephen Rothwell
--
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
http://blog.ffwll.ch
Re: [Intel-gfx] linux-next: Signed-off-by missing for commit in the drm-intel tree
Hi Matt,
Always use the dim tooling when applying patches, it will do the right
thing with regards to adding the S-o-b.
Regards, Joonas
Quoting Stephen Rothwell (2021-07-15 07:18:54)
> Hi all,
>
> Commit
>
> db47fe727e1f ("drm/i915/step: s/_revid_tbl/_revids")
>
> is missing a Signed-off-by from its committer.
>
> --
> Cheers,
> Stephen Rothwell
[Intel-gfx] linux-next: Signed-off-by missing for commit in the drm-intel tree
Hi all,
Commit
db47fe727e1f ("drm/i915/step: s/_revid_tbl/_revids")
is missing a Signed-off-by from its committer.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell
pgpibXSRKsvDB.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
[Intel-gfx] linux-next: Signed-off-by missing for commit in the drm-intel tree
Hi all,
Commit
8e525cb4a622 ("drm/i915/execlists: Move RPCS setup to context pin")
is missing a Signed-off-by from its committer.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell
pgpxcZGqnpdyb.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
Re: [Intel-gfx] linux-next: Signed-off-by missing for commit in the drm-intel tree
On Tue, Nov 06, 2018 at 04:00:34PM -0800, Rodrigo Vivi wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 07, 2018 at 06:59:29AM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Commit
> >
> > 35b876db4a42 ("drm/i915/dsc: Add slice_row_per_frame in DSC PPS
> > programming")
> >
> > is missing a Signed-off-by from its committer.
>
> It seems the tag "Suggested-by:" tricked out our maintainer tools.
Hmm yea that makes sense since it did have suggested-by: me (committer)
so it skipped adding my sign-off.
Thanks for catching this and fixing it in tools.
Manasi
>
> from dim:
>
> # check for committer sign-off
> if ! git show -s $sha1 | grep -qi "S.*-by:.*$committer" ; then
>
> -
>
> I will send a patch to our tools to spell signed-off-by directly.
>
> Thanks for reporting this out.
> Rodrigo.
>
> >
> > --
> > Cheers,
> > Stephen Rothwell
>
>
>
> > ___
> > Intel-gfx mailing list
> > Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
> > https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
>
> ___
> Intel-gfx mailing list
> Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
> https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
___
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
Re: [Intel-gfx] linux-next: Signed-off-by missing for commit in the drm-intel tree
On Wed, Nov 07, 2018 at 06:59:29AM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Commit
>
> 35b876db4a42 ("drm/i915/dsc: Add slice_row_per_frame in DSC PPS
> programming")
>
> is missing a Signed-off-by from its committer.
It seems the tag "Suggested-by:" tricked out our maintainer tools.
from dim:
# check for committer sign-off
if ! git show -s $sha1 | grep -qi "S.*-by:.*$committer" ; then
-
I will send a patch to our tools to spell signed-off-by directly.
Thanks for reporting this out.
Rodrigo.
>
> --
> Cheers,
> Stephen Rothwell
> ___
> Intel-gfx mailing list
> Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
> https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
___
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
[Intel-gfx] linux-next: Signed-off-by missing for commit in the drm-intel tree
Hi all,
Commit
35b876db4a42 ("drm/i915/dsc: Add slice_row_per_frame in DSC PPS programming")
is missing a Signed-off-by from its committer.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell
pgpRSiwHDXzgO.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
