On 08.09.2021 12:00, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Tue, Sep 7, 2021 at 11:47 PM Kari Argillander > <kari.argillander@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Tuesday, September 7, 2021, Andy Shevchenko >> (andy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx) wrote: >>> On Tuesday, September 7, 2021, Konstantin Komarov <almaz.alexandrovich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> On 07.09.2021 10:36, Kari Argillander wrote: > > ... > >>>> Yes, everything else seems good. >>>> We tested patches locally - no regression was >>> >>> The formal answer in such case should also contain the Tested-by tag. I would suggest you to read the Submitting Patches document (available in the Linux kernel source tree). >> >> He is a maintainer so he can add tags when he picks this up. > > It's a good practice to do so. Moreover, it's better to do it > patch-by-patch, so tools like `b4` can cope with tags for *anybody* > who will use it in automated way. > >> This is not >> really relevant here. > > Why not? > >> Yes it should be good to include that but I have already >> sended v4 which he has not tested. So I really cannot put this tag for him. >> So at the end he really should not even put it here. > > For v4 I agree with you. My answer doesn't contain Tested-by tag because author of patch already said that there will be next version of patch. Thanks for Submitting Patches document suggestion. > >> Also usually the maintainers will always make their own tests and usually >> they will not even bother with a tested-by tag. > > If it's their own code, yes, if it's others', why not? See above as well. > >> Or do you say to me that I >> should go read Submitting Patches document as I'm the one who submit >> this? > > It's always good to refresh memory, so why not? :-) >
