> On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 01:38:04PM +1030, Jonathan Woithe wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 06:57:08PM -0800, Darren Hart wrote: > > > On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 02:42:00AM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > > > On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 2:16 AM, Jonathan Woithe <jwoithe@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > On Wed, Feb 08, 2017 at 02:46:23PM +0100, Micha?? K??pie?? wrote: > > > > > > > > > In summary, I see no issues with this patch series which provides a much > > > > > needed clean up of the code and naming conventions within the fujitsu-laptop > > > > > driver. I'm happy for this series (patches 1-10/10) to be applied. > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Jonathan Woithe <jwoithe@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > I have noticed people start using SoB for the code they are > > > > maintaining w/o sending any pull requests. > > > > It is okay, but there is, as Wolfram pointed, a downside for patchwork > > > > users. Patchwork is tracking tags (A/R/T) which by a glance allows to > > > > see what patches are acked/reviewed/tested. > > > > > > Signed-off-by tracks the path the code takes from author to mainline. If you are > > > not the author or committing it to a tree followed by a pull-request, the > > > correct tag is "Reviewed-by". > > > > Yes, of course - I clearly had a brain fade back there. Having said that, > > in the past I've used "Acked-by" intead of "Reviewed-by". > > :-) > > > Do you want me to continue to use Acked-by, or should I switch to > > Reviewed-by? > > These tags do have different meanings, and have come up at Kernel Summit the > last couple of years. My interpretation of those discussions is: > > Acked-by: I have no objection to this patch, but I didn't really give it a > thorough review. I trust your judgement. e.g. minor change to your driver to > support a subsystem API change. These are of very little value. > > Reviewed-by: I have carefully reviewed this patch and would like it to be > applied. This should usually come with some sort of commentary describing the > level of review or an area you focused on. This is what we would like to see > from all of our driver maintainers. These are high value. > > Linus *really* dislikes one line acked by's, and only *slightly* more so than > one line reviewed by's. :-) This is really useful information and I think it does not deserve to be forgotten in a mailing list archive. If this is indeed the status quo, Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst could use some love. Here is what it currently says: > Acked-by: is often used by the maintainer of the affected code when that > maintainer neither contributed to nor forwarded the patch. My short experience with the x86 platform driver subsystem is consistent with that. The informal rule I inferred from mailing list discussions is that Acked-by: means the maintainer has reviewed the patch and sees no objections to it being applied. Granted, Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst also states that: > Acked-by: does not necessarily indicate acknowledgement of the entire patch. > For example, if a patch affects multiple subsystems and has an Acked-by: from > one subsystem maintainer then this usually indicates acknowledgement of just > the part which affects that maintainer's code. Judgement should be used here. > When in doubt people should refer to the original discussion in the mailing > list archives. And indeed, that is also true, especially for patch series affecting multiple subsystems. However, while the meaning of Reviewed-by: is described very thoroughly in that same document, I cannot recall a single case of a patch series affecting a single driver that would get a Reviewed-by: _from the maintainer_. Let alone a Reviewed-by: with a description of review depth. Perhaps I have read too little threads (or the wrong ones) :) With time, I have also grown to believe that one of the differences between Acked-by: and Reviewed-by: is that anyone interested can offer their Reviewed-by: while Acked-by: is reserved for driver maintainers. Perhaps this is all material for a "falsehoods kernel developers believe about commit tags"-type article ;) -- Best regards, Michał Kępień
