From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-pj1-f51.google.com (mail-pj1-f51.google.com [209.85.216.51]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8D8FE1BD9DD; Sun, 12 Jan 2025 16:31:31 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.216.51 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1736699492; cv=none; b=D2PB8YTTXl2zgvXNBYmR6J53RJzzOWqvv0SHH/DB3JD6XZdRrHPosz8yqkB9rP5YWCGi7cR0cm6eX8YwqZBXWheTYIL2y6UL7USa/dxkKZH2VvlkRtekX3h8ac3g9Yc2vkpi3w7a6Llnytypm8/atWlPVRh5X67iS504bo+f0E0= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1736699492; c=relaxed/simple; bh=sNhMBhyL5w4a7WceXmC4Y8SPg2Un1Y6l1A1LurqGZGI=; h=MIME-Version:References:In-Reply-To:From:Date:Message-ID:Subject: To:Cc:Content-Type; b=Y+2T54KQbpLU76R9Rkbmeq1joxJ7jYDJBnF/ohuzDg5W4yG7kxzITGR1oEb40Wcf+qNyBBt9zW007KSklYh8C9dh2NqjRz+agh52Kyt5MsxXkv47ZLTdVV/gtbMawTfuK5d8rIWumFSrxWX8vOu+i3P2tbmAji8n3HT6pt+kcF8= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b=AGFssvXG; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.216.51 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="AGFssvXG" Received: by mail-pj1-f51.google.com with SMTP id 98e67ed59e1d1-2ef6ee55225so753587a91.0; Sun, 12 Jan 2025 08:31:31 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1736699491; x=1737304291; darn=vger.kernel.org; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=iJZjA7ddXBzmeJP3TDfTjmPEzR8WOsxrozUuiF8qE4w=; b=AGFssvXGxyCuesyLRXT1GfYf+eUFGseDOS0khyC+XZ1f0q+4C9Fxb67oxzUstlZG3A zV+V28InWZwQV70XpOfksa5d0cy47fZTiWse828HtwYI/RCxqcRzPWWTAV+pJg3spKgu M4iIbWRMOj5tvTjWLcsmOUn6epvw+/j6QBVv43HleRXvxLSB7nhtdN4awLiAf4OXvLwX i/ceVPwkuEPPr60zjKbhYj1PBSMiN1QYNoc12DMVY5IFCcLL9rpdILJEWp83YAkr+tLQ rlkQZH37egm4AXBRnsSoMzctjPAhWdxb5U9X10pJvaFw+8dSGlpsCu+sjhvUCT9caDzh 2zOQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1736699491; x=1737304291; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=iJZjA7ddXBzmeJP3TDfTjmPEzR8WOsxrozUuiF8qE4w=; b=wYhC48T2ddUaJcEfT0v6WkXG0dXJ8dCgWP7jotUFu8srsb6U/3KVIEBWG113JtsspW UaOqTzh+Gn4rf5LjEbTsWmDoDJQ/LTSPP3XoqHY+s5hRHIxpQ/PzTJ3mBGYKf9s6rzv1 hPRDtwx6u+QOgoYi1BPjN6tP/tmv+qr3UG2M2cnXMhTnmxNGx7bostI9H6RaxQHgn8Cr whPjdnXcgBI8WQtIyCSPKP8tSCOhq6cKRJiudj1T3fjspmfP3AkUTMJ7IDCJg9Tm5yKj Lr8C1PqbrYlTtxEurlfkNRCvNjhan6WdMV+BMfjsGfJKuucQOMFH6PluIvtxLwFUMYjd P3FA== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCUHkZYsG/dU1wUtbTZg7w208o2jChYAhE1WXpgXxCyWfuC+5m3aXfqZ9MLByHSWMi6MToUCNyRytERlckC5@vger.kernel.org, AJvYcCWOfBZ4p2TFt8mus5iY2MTFEBuwiGp4EBQ7qaQ6kiHtEOhjqScaZsnOVHu9JI6WBP4JKxmnfylv8nHC@vger.kernel.org, AJvYcCXB/ccLF5mnb0gnPEGQtO8ptFwTK62ZAmZCHC+BS6PRYso+3bR9anZtPo138R0zFzYKfF1p2NrNUbE=@vger.kernel.org X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YxN6ldwp0rvl5guhC3Y+WQFmflCFwN/86ypLkP6SYA+AYirUYGI zMgVTLtWR9SffvWAO9EE2rkUKAyFtd7WUKLU7ohvBPGwqOpkAW2uwljuAEUWiABeUWi/JEwadJn iXk68aCHsjbmtmlN2jZFJN/ZSb2c= X-Gm-Gg: ASbGncustwDqhGRGQ2wRK1crJuek5/ypENzLkXZceYcaM5rW5zMlddPb60w3G2FfSiD 82fYjuyPKIlnC3xIPhH4/4VwvGDSQoLcNZltdpw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IFvatJdCQrTlZmglBTHxzU5RtyJmkJmF3ypBMnAlLF8B+1fvlW2IreBFOBIelSfosCLqmMIfHeK3qQGFTqGaRg= X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:d645:b0:2f4:f7f8:f70b with SMTP id 98e67ed59e1d1-2f5490fafb1mr10145767a91.5.1736699490780; Sun, 12 Jan 2025 08:31:30 -0800 (PST) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: workflows@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20250112152946.761150-1-ojeda@kernel.org> <20250112152946.761150-3-ojeda@kernel.org> In-Reply-To: From: Miguel Ojeda Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2025 17:31:18 +0100 X-Gm-Features: AbW1kvbRZqfo4lkp-4yUh14_r0u0RWQWyiMu2o_Vji7wu_AsRhSzINSQxGt7nXE Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] docs: submitting-patches: clarify difference between Acked-by and Reviewed-by To: Neal Gompa Cc: Miguel Ojeda , Jonathan Corbet , workflows@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, patches@lists.linux.dev, Sami Tolvanen , Masahiro Yamada , Luis Chamberlain , tech-board@groups.linuxfoundation.org, Steven Rostedt , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Linus Torvalds , Shuah Khan , Dan Williams , "Darrick J. Wong" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sun, Jan 12, 2025 at 4:51=E2=80=AFPM Neal Gompa wrote: > > This doesn't make sense as a distinction. What defines "thoroughly"? It is a call, but when you give a Reviewed-by, it at least includes what the "Reviewer's statement of oversight" mentions, unlike an Acked-by. > To be honest, I think you should go the other way and become okay with > people sending Reviewed-by tags when people have looked over a patch > and consider it good to land. I am not sure what you mean. It is OK for people to send Reviewed-by tags. The original discussion was about Acked-by because that is the one that was usually used by maintainers only. If what you mean is that Reviewed-by should not require an actual review, then that is not the purpose of the tag. Please see the "Reviewer's statement of oversight" -- its first bullet says: (a) I have carried out a technical review of this patch to evaluate its appropriateness and readiness for inclusion into the mainline kernel. > To me, Acked-by mostly makes sense as a tag for people who *won't* > review the code, not for those who *will*. Blending Acked-by and > Reviewed-by just creates confusion. The sentence about "thoroughly reviewing" in this patch is an example, not the only use case. The next sentence gives another example that explicitly says "may not have carried out a technical review". This series tries to, precisely, widen the use cases of Acked-by and explain those, so that it can be used by others who have not actually carried out a technical review. Still, it is not meant to be used randomly -- one is supposed to be a stakeholder in some way (please see the previous patch). Thanks for the quick review! Cheers, Miguel