Elijah Newren <newren@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > .... Maybe > the wording should instead be "It's okay to give a Reviewed-by: on a > series that also contains cocci changes when you are unfamiliar with > coccinelle; just state that your Reviewed-by is limited to the other > bits". Or maybe the instructions should just be to give an Acked-by. > You should probably have someone familiar enough with coccinelle that > they know what is worth worrying about weigh in on that aspect. > > But you can have my Acked-by on the other bits. :-) The value of Reviewed-by takes two sides to determine. Even if we reserve a Reviewed-by to "I have reviewed the entirety of this patch, and the patch is something I can stand behind" (as opposed to "my understanding of this patch is iffy in this and that area, but all the other parts of the patch is something I can stand behind"), the value of such a Reviewed-by is conditional to "how well does the reviewer actually know the area?" A drive-by "Reviewed-by:" thrown into a review discussion thread by a total stranger would not carry much weight, until we know how much they are familiar with and how good a taste they have. And honest qualifying comments like "my understanding of this and that area is iffy so I cannot endorse these parts" helps build trust by others in the reviewer who gives such a partial review and we should encourage such behaviour. I agree "Acked-by:" with comments is a good idea. Thanks.
