From: Jakub Kicinski <k...@kernel.org>
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2020 13:54:24 -0700
> On Fri, 10 Jul 2020 13:47:47 -0700 (PDT) David Miller wrote:
>> From: Jakub Kicinski <k...@kernel.org>
>> Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2020 17:03:20 -0700
>>
>> > On Thu, 09 Jul 2020 16:32:35 -0700 (PDT) David Miller wrote:
>> >> From: Cong Wang <xiyou.wangc...@gmail.com>
>> >>
>> >> In order for no_refcnt and is_data to be the lowest order two
>> >> bits in the 'val' we have to pad out the bitfield of the u8.
>> >>
>> >> Fixes: ad0f75e5f57c ("cgroup: fix cgroup_sk_alloc() for sk_clone_lock()")
>> >> Reported-by: Guenter Roeck <li...@roeck-us.net>
>> >> Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <da...@davemloft.net>
>> >
>> > FWIW Cong's listed in From: but there's no sign-off from him so the
>> > signoff checking script may get upset about this one.
>>
>> I wonder how I should handle that situation though? I want to give
>> Cong credit for the change, and not take full credit for it myself.
>
> Cong, would you mind responding with a Sign-off for the patch?
That's not useful for two reasons:
1) This commit is in my tree and the commit message is immutable.
2) I needed to apply this patch because I didn't have time to wait for
a turn-around from Cong or anyone else. That's the situation where
I'm asking "what should I do in this situation?" I don't have the
luxury of waiting for the author to reply and add a signoff because
I'm trying to get a pull request out to Linus with the fix or
similar.
Is it more clear now? :-)
