> On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 6:17 AM, Jonathan Woithe <jwoithe@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 07:53:19PM -0800, Darren Hart wrote: > >> On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 01:38:04PM +1030, Jonathan Woithe wrote: > >> > 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. :-) > > > > Got it, thanks, this is very helpful. > > > > In light of this I give you the following. > > > > Reviewed-by: Jonathan Woithe <jwoithe@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Thanks, applied for testing with above tag. Andy, It looks like you missed this part of Jonathan's message: > As per subsequent discussion we have agreed to drop patch 8/10 from the > series: it creates problems on newer hardware and the issue it is addressing > will be more completely dealt with in a subsequent patch series. I see that patch 8/10 was applied to testing as well. Could you please drop that single patch? Thanks, -- Best regards, Michał Kępień
