Re: [PATCH] accel/qaic: Use pointer from memcpy() call for assignment in copy_partial_exec_reqs()

[Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@web.de>]

>>>> From: Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net>
>>>> Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2025 11:26:33 +0100
>>>> …
>>>> Signed-off-by: Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net>
>>>
>>> This does not match the address this patch was received from, therefore DCO does not appear to be satisfied.  I cannot accept this.
>>
>> I find such a change rejection questionable.
>> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst?h=v6.18-rc3#n409
> 
> I received this patch from "Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@web.de>".

This can be fine.


> There is no SOB from "Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@web.de>" therefore "Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@web.de>" has not followed the DCO.

Are you aware how author information can be better preserved for patches?


> The resolution to this is either the author and the SOB change to "Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@web.de>" or "Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@web.de>" adds a SOB at the end to show the path the patch took (reference the paragraph in the documentation you linked to, starting at line 449).

There are obviously two email addresses which refer to me.

Would you be willing to clarify the proposed change possibility another bit?
(Would another patch variant become relevant for the affected software component at all?)

Regards,
Markus