Arend van Spriel <arend.vanspriel@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> My bad, I misunderstood your intentions. Luckily this time it wasn't >> serious. >> BTW to make super clear to me I would prefer that you (Arend) use >> Acked-by. It shows up in my script like the number '1' here: >> *[ 4] [next] wifi: carl9170: Remove redundant assignment t... 1 - - >> 2 5d Colin Ian Ki Under Review >> So if I don't see your Acked-by then I will not even look at the >> patch :) > > Sure. I tend to use Acked-by if things look sane a quick glance. If I > need to dig further I prefer to use Reviewed-by. If I have comments to > revise the patch I will refrain using them. Is that ok or you really > want it to be Acked-by? Ah, now I understand better. My understanding is that the maintainer of the driver uses Acked-by and others use Reviewed-by. This says the same: https://docs.kernel.org/process/submitting-patches.html#when-to-use-acked-by-cc-and-co-developed-by And yes, I would prefer if you could use Acked-by always. It's up to your judgement if you do just a peek or in-depth review :) -- https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-wireless/list/ https://wireless.wiki.kernel.org/en/developers/documentation/submittingpatches
