From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.156.1]:32964 "EHLO mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726853AbfKKJIM (ORCPT ); Mon, 11 Nov 2019 04:08:12 -0500 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098399.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id xAB94Ca6143434 for ; Mon, 11 Nov 2019 04:08:11 -0500 Received: from e06smtp07.uk.ibm.com (e06smtp07.uk.ibm.com [195.75.94.103]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2w7259dxgg-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Mon, 11 Nov 2019 04:08:10 -0500 Received: from localhost by e06smtp07.uk.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Mon, 11 Nov 2019 09:08:08 -0000 Subject: Re: [v3] s390/pkey: Use memdup_user() rather than duplicating its implementation References: <08422b7e-2071-ee52-049e-c3ac55bc67a9@web.de> <6137855bb4170c438c7436cbdb7dfd21639a8855.camel@perches.com> <833d7d5e-6ede-6bdd-a2cc-2da7f0b03908@de.ibm.com> <1b65bc81-f47a-eefa-f1f4-d5af6a1809c0@web.de> <733b29df-207e-a165-ee80-46be8720c0c4@de.ibm.com> <8f98f9fc-57df-5993-44b5-5ea4c0de7ef9@web.de> <61244676-8ac1-20af-ed94-99e19c1f95d5@web.de> <040f3e18-d97a-fc32-b237-20e7553e1733@de.ibm.com> <6de4f605-6f74-a3b6-92d5-c5162cb54a6f@de.ibm.com> From: Christian Borntraeger Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2019 10:08:03 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: Sender: linux-s390-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Markus Elfring , linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, Harald Freudenberger , Heiko Carstens , Ingo Franzki , Vasily Gorbik , Joe Perches Cc: LKML , kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, Kangjie Lu , Navid Emamdoost , Stephen McCamant On 11.11.19 10:06, Markus Elfring wrote: >>> Does hinder you anything from continuing to use the previous known email address? >> >> Can you at least send a mail from sourceforge address with the Signed-off-by? > > Not any more (for a while). Then I will not apply that patch with that email and signoff.