On 21/11/2022 17:37, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 21/11/2022 14:50, Laurent Pinchart wrote: >> On Mon, Nov 21, 2022 at 12:16:41PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>> On 21/11/2022 11:38, Laurent Pinchart wrote: >>>> On Mon, Nov 21, 2022 at 09:04:29AM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>>>> On 21/11/2022 06:09, Paul Elder wrote: >>>>>> On Sun, Nov 20, 2022 at 11:36:31AM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>>>>>> On 19/11/2022 07:55, Paul Elder wrote: >>>>>>>> On Fri, Nov 18, 2022 at 02:06:14PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 18/11/2022 10:39, Paul Elder wrote: >>>>>>>>>> From: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Add an example to the rockchip-isp1 DT binding that showcases usage of >>>>>>>>>> the parallel input of the ISP, connected to the CSI-2 receiver internal >>>>>>>>>> to the i.MX8MP. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Missing SoB. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I don't quite understand. I see an SoB right there. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Laurent did not sent it. Did you run checkpatch before sending? >>>>>> >>>>>> That's why he's on the "From:" in the beginning. checkpatch says it's >>>>>> fine. >>>>> >>>>> Ah, indeed, checkpatch misses that feature (it's part of Greg's >>>>> verify_signedoff.sh). Anyway, your SoB is missing, as Laurent did not >>>>> send the patch. >>>> >>>> I thought adding an SoB was only required either when making changes or >>>> when pushing commits through git, not when forwarding patches on mailing >>>> lists ? >>> >>> Anyone touching the file should signed it off. You cannot send it >>> without touching (e.g. git format-patch). >>> >>> https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v5.19-rc5/source/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst#L397 >>> >>> https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v5.19-rc5/source/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst#L420 >> >> The second link states >> >> SoB chains should reflect the **real** route a patch took as it was >> propagated to the maintainers and ultimately to Linus, with the first >> SoB entry signalling primary authorship of a single author. >> >> This series will (eventually) be upstreamed by me through a pull request >> to Mauro. Paul's SoB will thus not be needed. Of course you have no way >> to know this when reviewing the series on the list. >> >> Adding a SoB line when taking a patch in a git tree is standard >> practice, but when posting unmodified patches to a mailing list, there's >> more of a grey area. Look at >> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20221024113058.096628238@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ >> for instance, posted by Greg, but without his SoB. > > I have no clue what Paul modified here what not. I am not going to > investigate and I have no way to actually perform such investigation. I > cannot verify the source. BTW, rebasing is modifying and Paul probably did it (or is likely that will rebase in the future). Greg did not perform rebases on these, I think. > > The case with Greg, is indeed surprising, but I could perform the > verification, because the work is both public and in known place. > > It's expected for submitter to certify (c) from the list which was BTW > expressed also many times during many reviews by many people. > > Best regards, > Krzysztof > Best regards, Krzysztof
