[PATCH v4 00/14] drm/vkms: Allow to configure device

[Maxime Ripard]

On Tue, Mar 04, 2025 at 10:43:12AM +0100, Louis Chauvet wrote:
> 
> 
> Le 18/02/2025 à 11:12, José Expósito a écrit :
> > Hi everyone,
> > 
> > In preparation for ConfigFS support, a flexible way to configure VKMS device(s)
> > is required.
> > This series adds the required APIs to create a configuration, the code changes
> > required to apply it and KUnit test validating the changes.
> > 
> > Louis Chauvet and I are working on ConfigFS support. In this series I tried to
> > merge his changes [1] with mine [2].
> > I kept his Signed-off-by to reflect that, even if I show up as the author of
> > some/most of the patches, this was a joint effort.
> > 
> > I'll send the ConfigFS code [3] and its IGT tests [4] code this week.
> > Meanwhile, the IGT tests also exercise this series and can be used for
> > additional test coverage.
> > 
> > Best wishes,
> > José Expósito
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> I am trying to apply this series but I am encountering some issues. Most of
> the patches have the following trailers:
> 
> Co-developed-by: Louis Chauvet
> Signed-off-by: Louis Chauvet
> Signed-off-by: José Exposito
> 
> When I use dim b4-shazam, the result is:
> 
> Co-developed-by: Louis Chauvet
> Signed-off-by: José Exposito
> Signed-off-by: Louis Chauvet
> 
> However, checkpatch is not happy with this because it removes my
> Signed-off-by line immediately after Co-developed-by.
> 
> I then tried to add it myself:
> 
> Co-developed-by: Louis Chauvet
> Signed-off-by: Louis Chauvet
> Signed-off-by: José Exposito
> Signed-off-by: Louis Chauvet
> 
> But this time, checkpatch complains that I have my Signed-off-by line twice.
> 
> And if I don't add the last Signed-off-by, checkpatch is indeed not happy
> too:
> 
> Co-developed-by: Louis Chauvet
> Signed-off-by: Louis Chauvet
> Signed-off-by: José Exposito
> 
> How should I proceed in this situation? Should I ignore some warnings? If
> so, what are the expected trailers?

I assume Jose is the author and you're the committer? If so, I guess I'd
expect the second to be the most relevant, but it's going to suck
anyway.

I kind of side-stepped the problem and applied the series

Maxime
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 228 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/dri-devel/attachments/20250307/b5fb9d9c/attachment.sig>