Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On Tue, Oct 22, 2024 at 03:32:23AM +0000, Ping-Ke Shih wrote:
>
>> Zong-Zhe Yang <kevin_yang@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > [...]
>> > >
>> > > @@ -1373,6 +1373,7 @@ static void rtw89_ops_unassign_vif_chanctx(struct ieee80211_hw
>> > > *hw,
>> > >
>> > > rtwvif_link = rtwvif->links[link_conf->link_id];
>> > > if (unlikely(!rtwvif_link)) {
>> > > + mutex_unlock(&rtwdev->mutex);
>> > > rtw89_err(rtwdev,
>> > > "%s: rtwvif link (link_id %u) is not active\n",
>> > > __func__, link_conf->link_id);
>> > >
>> >
>> > Acked-by: Zong-Zhe Yang <kevin_yang@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>> >
>>
>> Thanks for the ack.
>>
>> Acked-by is often used by the maintainer, so I will change it to Reviewed-by
>> during committing.
>
> To me Acked by just means you're okay with the patch. When I use it, it means I
> don't feel qualified or interested enough to do a full review. For example, if
> I complain about a v1 patch and they fix my issue in v2 then I like to say that
> I'm okay with it. In that case I'll use Reviewed-by for a full review or Acked
> by if the bits that I care about are okay. I don't like to complain and then
> just go silent.
>
> In the end, it doesn't make any difference. You'll get CC'd on bug reports to
> do with the patch and you'll potentially feel bad for not spotting the bug, I
> guess.
I have understood that Acked-by should be only used by the corresponding
maintainers and the documentation seems to say the same:
https://docs.kernel.org/process/submitting-patches.html#when-to-use-acked-by-cc-and-co-developed-by
The reason I ask non-maintainers avoid using Acked-by is that it messes
our patchwork listings (it counts both Acked-by and Reviewed-by tags).
--
https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-wireless/list/
https://wireless.wiki.kernel.org/en/developers/documentation/submittingpatches
