Re: [Qemu-devel] [PULL 0/2] seccomp branch queue

[Eduardo Otubo <eduardo.otubo@profitbricks.com>]

On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 08:50:07PM +0000, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 10 November 2014 14:21, Eduardo Otubo <eduardo.otubo@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