On Mon, 11 Jul 2011 00:56:57 +0200 (CEST) Jesper Juhl wrote: > On Sun, 10 Jul 2011, Randy Dunlap wrote: > > > On Sun, 10 Jul 2011 12:49:20 -0400 Arnaud Lacombe wrote: > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 12:28 PM, Pekka Enberg <penberg@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 7:24 PM, Arnaud Lacombe <lacombar@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >> Hi, > > > >> > > > >> On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 12:16 PM, Américo Wang <xiyou.wangcong@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >>> On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 12:24 AM, Raghavendra D Prabhu > > > >>> <rprabhu@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >>>> Hi, > > > >>>> I am seeing Wunused-but-set warning while make nconfig. Looks like > > > >>>> active_menu is not used. Removing it fixes the warning. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Signed-off-by: Raghavendra D Prabhu <rprabhu@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > > >>> > > > >>> Acked-by: WANG Cong <xiyou.wangcong@xxxxxxxxx> > > > >>> > > > >> Out of curiosity, what is your status to ACK such patch ? > > > > > > > > What kind of status do you need to ACK such a simple patch? > > > > > > > As per Documentation/SubmittingPatches: > > > > > > << > > > 13) When to use Acked-by: and Cc: > > > The Signed-off-by: tag indicates that the signer was involved in the > > > development of the patch, or that he/she was in the patch's delivery path. > > > > > > If a person was not directly involved in the preparation or handling of a > > > patch but wishes to signify and record their approval of it then they can > > > arrange to have an Acked-by: line added to the patch's changelog. > > > > > > Acked-by: is often used by the maintainer of the affected code when that > > > maintainer neither contributed to nor forwarded the patch. > > > >> > > > > > > That said, it is not a strong requirement... unfortunately. So, let's > > > have some fun and go ACK thousand of trivial patch just to generate > > > traffic on the LKML and give myself self-importance :-) > > > > Acked-by: is mostly used as a weak version of Reviewed-by: > > and the "definition" in SubmittingPatches is not accurate IMO. > > I.e., it can be used by anyone. > > > > Interesting. I was under the impression that Reviewed-by: was a weaker > thing than Acked-by: - I certainly have been using it as such. > > I've always interpreted Acked-by: as being something you could apply if > you were the author, maintainer or other person with similar strong > background knowledge of the code. Where Reviewed-by: could be used by > anyone, as long as they had taken the time to read the patch and try and > understand what was going on and the result/conclusion looked good. I don't see it in SubmittingPatches, but there was some discussion at the time (IIRC!!) that Reviewed-by: indicates that you are willing to support/fix the patch if the patch author(s) disappear. I.e., you are willing to take some ownership responsibility of the patch. or I could be dreaming... --- ~Randy *** Remember to use Documentation/SubmitChecklist when testing your code *** -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kbuild" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
