Re: [PATCH v2 0/7] misc libata improvements

[Damien Le Moal <damien.lemoal@opensource.wdc.com>]

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@opensource.wdc.com/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