On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 08:50:07PM +0000, Peter Maydell wrote: > On 10 November 2014 14:21, Eduardo Otubo <eduardo.ot...@profitbricks.com> > wrote: > > Hi, > > > > This is the seccomp branch queue with fixes regarding a build crach on > > armv7l > > and adding new syscalls to the whitelist. Details below. > > > > The following changes since commit 6e76d125f244e10676b917208f2a074729820246: > > > > Update version for v2.2.0-rc0 release (2014-11-05 15:21:04 +0000) > > > > are available in the git repository at: > > > > git://github.com/otubo/qemu.git tags/pull-seccomp-20141110 > > > > for you to fetch changes up to f5c76d3eb66a63604d9d8b47ce94268f9babea10: > > > > seccomp: change configure to avoid arm 32 to break (2014-11-07 16:42:18 > > +0100) > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > seccomp: change configure to avoid arm 32 to break > > seccomp: whitelist syscalls fallocate(), fadvise64(), inotify_init1() and > > inotify_add_watch() > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > Eduardo Otubo (1): > > seccomp: change configure to avoid arm 32 to break > > > > Philipp Gesang (1): > > seccomp: whitelist syscalls fallocate(), fadvise64(), inotify_init1() > > and inotify_add_watch() > > Hi. I'm afraid I'm going to have to ask you to respin this, > because the patches are missing various reviewed-by/signed-off etc > tags. > > Firstly, and least critically, the configure patch should have > the reviewed-by and acked-by tags that people have posted on > the mailing list for it; it's useful to keep a permanent record > of these in the commit history (for instance it can give a good > idea of who to cc if a change turns out to have a bug in future). > > More significantly, the patch from Philipp is missing a > Signed-off-by: line from you. Every commit in a pullreq should > have a signed-off-by: from the submaintainer(s) of the tree > that's being pulled, because it represents your assertion that > these changes are good to go into QEMU without further checking. >
My apologies! I was so worried about the key and tagging being set properly on my branch that those lines completely passed from my review. I resent the pull request with everything double-checked. I hope everything is 0K now. > Sorry to have to be picky about this. The good news is, your > signed tag seems OK. You should make sure you've pushed your > public key out to the public keyservers if you haven't already > (gpg --send-keys 12F8BD2F) since it's not currently visible > there [there is a lag of a day or two though so if you've > sent it out recently it's probably just in that delay.] > I just pushed my key to the public server. So it might take a while to appear as valid. Thanks for the help on this, and sorry again for the lapses. Regards, -- Eduardo Otubo ProfitBricks GmbH
