Re: [PATCH for-4.5] tools/oxenstored: Fix | vs & error in fd event handling

[Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@citrix.com>]

On Wed, 2014-11-26 at 19:03 +0000, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 26/11/14 18:41, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 06:24:11PM +0000, Dave Scott wrote:
> >>> On 26 Nov 2014, at 15:38, Zheng Li <dev@zheng.li> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On 26/11/2014 15:09, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> >>>> This makes fields 0 and 1 true more often than they should be, resulting
> >>>> problems when handling events.
> >>> Indeed, looks like a mistake I made when rewriting the logic terms lately. The result is POLLUP or POLLERR events being returned in more categories than we'd interest. Thanks for fixing this!
> >>>
> >>> Acked-by: Zheng Li <dev@zheng.li>
> >> This also looks fine to me
> >>
> >> Acked-by: David Scott <dave.scott@citrix.com>
> > Would it be possible to get an Reviewed-by please?
> 
> Strictly speaking Zheng, not being a maintainer, can't ack the patch,
> given what I believe to be Xens current rules for these things. 
> However, as the author of the code and comment in this thread, his ack
> can reasonably be considered equivalent to a  Reviewed-by:  I guess this
> is just a matter of semantics.

In theory/According to
https://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/SubmittingPatches Reviewed-by
"indicates that the patch has been reviewed and found
acceptable according to the Reviewer's Statement:

	Reviewer's statement of oversight

	By offering my Reviewed-by: tag, I state that:

 	 (a) I have carried out a technical review of this patch to
	     evaluate its appropriateness and readiness for inclusion into
	     the mainline kernel.

	 (b) Any problems, concerns, or questions relating to the patch
	     have been communicated back to the submitter.  I am satisfied
	     with the submitter's response to my comments.

	 (c) While there may be things that could be improved with this
	     submission, I believe that it is, at this time, (1) a
	     worthwhile modification to the kernel, and (2) free of known
	     issues which would argue against its inclusion.

	 (d) While I have reviewed the patch and believe it to be sound, I
	     do not (unless explicitly stated elsewhere) make any
	     warranties or guarantees that it will achieve its stated
	     purpose or function properly in any given situation.

Whereas Acked-by is just an indication of no-objections or fine-by-me
from the maintainer or possibly a previous reviewer indicating that
their previous concerns have been removed.

That said when they come from someone relevant to the code at hand (as
e.g. Zheng is here) personally I mostly treat them the same (and I
pretty much always say Acked-by not Reviewed-by because my fingers just
do that by default). I think there are others in the project who do
treat them as distinct.

All in all I think it's safe to say that the XenProject neither
implements any distinction in a very strict way in practice nor has a
very consistent view on the differences between them. Personally I don't
think the distinction really matters a great deal and we have more than
enough rules and process as it is without getting too worked up about
Acked vs Reviewed by.

Ian.