On Tue, Sep 7, 2021 at 11:47 PM Kari Argillander <kari.argillander@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tuesday, September 7, 2021, Andy Shevchenko > (andy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx) wrote: > > On Tuesday, September 7, 2021, Konstantin Komarov <almaz.alexandrovich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> On 07.09.2021 10:36, Kari Argillander wrote: ... > >> Yes, everything else seems good. > >> We tested patches locally - no regression was > > > > The formal answer in such case should also contain the Tested-by tag. I would suggest you to read the Submitting Patches document (available in the Linux kernel source tree). > > He is a maintainer so he can add tags when he picks this up. It's a good practice to do so. Moreover, it's better to do it patch-by-patch, so tools like `b4` can cope with tags for *anybody* who will use it in automated way. > This is not > really relevant here. Why not? > Yes it should be good to include that but I have already > sended v4 which he has not tested. So I really cannot put this tag for him. > So at the end he really should not even put it here. For v4 I agree with you. > Also usually the maintainers will always make their own tests and usually > they will not even bother with a tested-by tag. If it's their own code, yes, if it's others', why not? See above as well. > Or do you say to me that I > should go read Submitting Patches document as I'm the one who submit > this? It's always good to refresh memory, so why not? :-) -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
