[lkml]   [2011]   [Jul]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [PATCH] Avoid Wunused-but-set warning

    On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 9:15 PM, Américo Wang <> wrote:
    > On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 1:11 AM, Randy Dunlap <> 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
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2011-07-13 04:23    [W:0.024 / U:29.088 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site