On 23/04/2024 14:51, Andre Przywara wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Apr 2024 14:18:23 +0200
> Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
>> On 23/04/2024 12:15, Andre Przywara wrote:
>>> On Mon, 22 Apr 2024 17:45:10 +0100
>>> Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>>> From: James McGregor <jamcgregor@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>
>>>> The Allwinner H616 SoC has an LRADC which is compatible with the
>>>> versions in existing SoCs.
>>>> Add a compatible string for H616, with the R329 fallback. This is the
>>>> same as the D1, so put them into an enum.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: James McGregor <jamcgregor@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@xxxxxxx>
>>>
>>> Compared the descriptions in the manual between the R392 and the H616, they
>>> look the same:
>>>
>>> Reviewed-by: Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@xxxxxxx>
>>
>> Why do you review your own patches? Does it mean that you contribute
>> code which you did not review before?
>
> I just merely sent the code on behalf of James, because he had trouble
> with the email setup (Protonmail has no SMTP), but didn't want to delay
> the post any longer.
OK, thanks, I suggest using b4 relay in the future.
>
>> This is odd process.
>
> I agree, I would have liked it more if James would have sent it himself,
> and then my review would look more natural, but with my review I
> wanted to explicitly point out the technical correctness. Besides: I found
> this ordering issue in the other patch only after sending, so needed to
> somehow respond anyway.
> Also I wanted to make the process transparent: someone posts a patch (in
> this case via a proxy), then it gets reviewed.
>
>> Your Review is implied by sending the patch.
>
> Is that really true? I was under the impression that sending is
For authorship, both tested and review are implied. You cannot send code
which you do not think is correct, therefore your authorship fulfills
entire Reviewer's statement of oversight. There is nothing new said in
statement of oversight comparing to what authorship says.
Now for testing, I think it is also kind of obvious that whenever we can
test our own code, we test it.
For sending other people patches, we could disagree. I stand that I
would not ever send incorrect patch intentionally. Therefore reviewer's
statement of oversight is entirely redundant as well. I just cannot send
someone's patch without reviewing, thus without adhering to points
expressed by statement of oversight.
> independent from review. I mean I doubt that every maintainer sending
> patches up the chain (when they add their SoB) implies a *review*? Surely
Yes, every. This applies to mass-maintainers, like netdev, Greg, Andrew etc.
Every patch I apply to my subsystems is reviewed by me. I cannot do
else, because that is the requirement of maintainership.
There are however maintainers (see i2c patches or Intel DRM) who accept
patches and do not review them. When they review, they provide
additional Rb tag + Sob. This is weird because it means when they accept
patch, they take it unreviewed! Their SoB does not imply reviewing patch
and this is in contrast to kernel process.
BTW, Stephen Rothwell mentions this to every maintainer on adding their
tree to linux-next ("You will need to ensure that ... reviewed by you
(or another maintainer of your subsystem tree)").
> they do agree on the patch (also typically expressed by an Ack), otherwise
> they wouldn't send it, but a "review" is still a different thing.
IMO, this would mean such maintainers accept code which they do not
understand/review/care. They are just patch juggling monkeys who take
something and push it further without doing actual work.
That's not how maintainership should look like. Maintainer must take
reviewed code and, if other maintainers do not review, then they must
perform it.
> The Linux history has both Rb + SoB from the same person and just SoB
> signatures, so I assume that it's not implied.
It depends on people. As I said, I2C and DRM provide Review tag. For me
this is silly and suggest that all my work, that 1000 patches I took,
was not reviewed.
>
>> And you have there SoB which indicates you sent it...
>
> Yes, but SoB just means I sign off on the legal aspects: that I got the
> patches legally, compliant with the GPL, and that I am fine with and
> allowed to release them under GPL conditions.
> That does not include any code review aspect, AFAICT.
So you want to say, that you are fine in sending intentionally buggy
code, knowingly incorrect, because your SoB and your "git send-email"
does not mean you reviewed it?
Best regards,
Krzysztof
