lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Jul]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH] Avoid Wunused-but-set warning
From
Hi,

On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 9:15 PM, Américo Wang <xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 1:11 AM, Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@xenotime.net> wrote:
>> On Mon, 11 Jul 2011 06:09:52 +0100 Mark Brown wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 04:53:33PM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote:
>>>
>>> > But do as you like.  Which parts of SubmittingPatches do you think
>>> > support your interpretation?
>>>
>>> > and should we have this line:
>>> >     Acked-by: is not as formal as Signed-off-by:.
>>> > changed to:
>>> >     Acked-by: is not as formal as Signed-off-by: or Reviewed-by:.
>>> > e.g.?
>>>
>>> Current practice seems to be that Acked-by is used instead of
>>> Reviewed-by - the latter is comparatively rare.
>>
>>
>> ISTM that more education and encouragement are needed about Reviewed-by:.
>> (Patch Review is a possible kernel summit topic.)
>>
>> and that SubmittingPatches should be updated since we generally refer people
>> to that file and not to Documentation/development-process/
>
> Agreed, mind to send a patch? ;-)
>
>>
>> Samples from my partial mailing list archives:
>>
>> linux-pci mailing list:         Acked-by: 93    Reviewed-by: 81
>> linux-mm mailing list:          Acked-by: 2104  Reviewed-by: 1344
>> netdev mailing list:            Acked-by: 1366  Reviewed-by: 659
>>
>
> Yup, take netdev as an example, Davem is the only maintainer (not to
> say things like wireless)
> but definitely people like Eirc or Herbert is qualified to give Acked-by too.
>
I have the feeling from this thread that "Acked-by:" does not need any
particular qualification, whereas Reviewed-by: "kinda" does. But I may
have understood that all wrong. Btw, I say "kinda" as I see nothing in
the Reviewed-by: or Acked-by: definition that require any
qualification on the involved subsystem to give an Acked-by: or a
Reviewed-by:. Maybe we [not?] need such some formal requirement.

Just to highlight my point, you have never had any involvement[0] in
scripts/kconfig/, but still gave an Acked-by:, how trivial the
original patch might have been[1].

- Arnaud

[0]: git's history can back me on this affirmation, no matter what you
affirm, even using the linux-glx-history.git tree, as long as kconfig
has been held in scripts/kconfig; .gitignore fixes does not count.

[1]: please do not see any kind attack here, that's not the point.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2011-07-13 04:23    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans