On Sun, Feb 26, 2017 at 1:30 PM, Michał Kępień <kernel@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> 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: Indeed. > >> 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? Good we have testing branch and thank you for pointing out. Should be fixed now. -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
