On Sunday, August 22, 2021 4:58:10 PM CEST Phillip Potter wrote: > Dear Fabio, > > An Acked-by merely signals acknowledgement of the patch, and that is > looks OK to the person offering the tag. Please see the following > quote from the kernel.org documentation: > "Acked-by: is not as formal as Signed-off-by:. It is a record that the > acker has at least reviewed the patch and has indicated acceptance." > It is not, to my knowledge, a commitment from the reviewer that the > patch applies to the given tree at that precise moment in time. Dear Philip, I didn't mean to be harsh with you, I apologize if this is the message I conveyed. Really! > I reviewed the patch, and indicated my acceptance - the content of the > patch is fine. Whilst I will often make an effort to merge + build > test many patches, I will not do this with all of them, I simply don't > have the time due to other commitments. You can be assured that if I > have offered this tag I have at least read the patch and it looks > correct to me. Now it is clearer to me what acking means. I've given only a handful of acks because I thought I should also check if they applied and if they build. It takes time. Now I understand it is not required. Thanks. > Particularly with a driver as in flux as this one, there are going to > be many merge conflicts. Advice such as this to me is not particularly > helpful, as I can promise you I'm trying :-) Please, don't ever think I'm not more than sure that you give a lot of your _unpaid_ time to the kernel and I thank you very much I know what it means, because I too have other commitments :-) Cheers, Fabio > Regards, > Phil >
