On Tue, Mar 04, 2025 at 10:43:12AM +0100, Louis Chauvet wrote: > > > Le 18/02/2025 à 11:12, José Expósito a écrit : > > Hi everyone, > > > > In preparation for ConfigFS support, a flexible way to configure VKMS > > device(s) > > is required. > > This series adds the required APIs to create a configuration, the code > > changes > > required to apply it and KUnit test validating the changes. > > > > Louis Chauvet and I are working on ConfigFS support. In this series I tried > > to > > merge his changes [1] with mine [2]. > > I kept his Signed-off-by to reflect that, even if I show up as the author of > > some/most of the patches, this was a joint effort. > > > > I'll send the ConfigFS code [3] and its IGT tests [4] code this week. > > Meanwhile, the IGT tests also exercise this series and can be used for > > additional test coverage. > > > > Best wishes, > > José Expósito > > Hi all, > > I am trying to apply this series but I am encountering some issues. Most of > the patches have the following trailers: > > Co-developed-by: Louis Chauvet > Signed-off-by: Louis Chauvet > Signed-off-by: José Exposito > > When I use dim b4-shazam, the result is: > > Co-developed-by: Louis Chauvet > Signed-off-by: José Exposito > Signed-off-by: Louis Chauvet > > However, checkpatch is not happy with this because it removes my > Signed-off-by line immediately after Co-developed-by. > > I then tried to add it myself: > > Co-developed-by: Louis Chauvet > Signed-off-by: Louis Chauvet > Signed-off-by: José Exposito > Signed-off-by: Louis Chauvet > > But this time, checkpatch complains that I have my Signed-off-by line twice. > > And if I don't add the last Signed-off-by, checkpatch is indeed not happy > too: > > Co-developed-by: Louis Chauvet > Signed-off-by: Louis Chauvet > Signed-off-by: José Exposito > > How should I proceed in this situation? Should I ignore some warnings? If > so, what are the expected trailers?
I assume Jose is the author and you're the committer? If so, I guess I'd expect the second to be the most relevant, but it's going to suck anyway. I kind of side-stepped the problem and applied the series Maxime
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
