On 1/4/23 19:16, Niklas Cassel wrote: > On Wed, Jan 04, 2023 at 11:12:29AM +0100, Niklas Cassel wrote: >> On Wed, Jan 04, 2023 at 01:43:54PM +0900, Damien Le Moal wrote: >>> On 12/30/22 01:59, Niklas Cassel wrote: >>>> Hello there, >>>> >>>> This series contains misc libata improvements. >>>> >>>> These improvements were identified while developing support for Command >>>> Duration Limits (CDL). All patches in this series (i.e. V1 of these >>>> patches) were orignally sent out as part of the CDL series, found here: >>>> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-scsi/510732e0-7962-cf54-c22c-f1d7066895f5@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/T/ >>>> >>>> However, as these improvements are completely unrelated to CDL, they can >>>> be merged independently, and should not need to wait for other patches. >>> >>> Applied the series to for-6.3. Patch 1 had a small conflict that I fixed >>> up. Thanks ! >> >> I had a look at the SHA1 for this patch in your tree, and it looks good. >> >> However, patches 2/7, 3/7, 4/7, 7/7 seem to miss your chain sign-off. > > Is this perhaps because checkpatch complains if the same sign-off exists > twice on the same patch? > > Not sure if this should be ignored or not... > To me, it seems more important to keep a record of the chain, > than to keep checkpatch happy, but I could be wrong here.. I do not sign again patches that already have my SoB. linux-next build bot will complain if I forget signing patches I apply, but it does not seem that the order matters... Not entirely certain about the correct practice with that though. > > > Kind regards, > Niklas -- Damien Le Moal Western Digital Research
