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