Missing signoffs in the hte tree

[Mark Brown]

On Mon, May 01, 2023 at 12:40:16PM -0700, Dipen Patel wrote:
> On 4/24/23 5:07 AM, Mark Brown wrote:

> >   1af0f6b5060cf ("hte: tegra-194: Use proper includes")
> >   3798a6e3b6a89 ("hte: Use device_match_of_node()")
> >   981501927e482 ("hte: tegra-194: Fix off by one in tegra_hte_map_to_line_id()")
> >   58e1189d075a4 ("hte: tegra: fix 'struct of_device_id' build error")
> >   499c35fe9bf2e ("hte: Use of_property_present() for testing DT property presence")

> > in the hte tree for today are missing a Signed-off-by from their
> > committers.

> Shouldn't Acked-by tag from me (maintainer of the HTE tree) enough? I mean it does imply signed-off-by, right?

No, not at all - the signoff has specific meaning with regard to the
developer certificate of origin [1] - whoever applies the commit needs
to supply a signoff to say that they're asserting that the DCO is being
followed.  This is separate to review (though if a maintainer is
applying a patch that's generally at least as good as an ack so no need
for anything else).

[1] https://developercertificate.org/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 488 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/attachments/20230502/47b7cf34/attachment.sig>