Re: [PATCH] ext4: Variable to signed to check return code

["Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>]

On Sat, May 18, 2019 at 07:38:34AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
>   "- Acked-by: indicates an agreement by another developer (often a
>      maintainer of the relevant code) that the patch is appropriate for
>      inclusion into the kernel."
> 
> And I, as a developer (and not a Maintainer in this case) do indicate
> that this patch is appropriate for inclusion into the kernel.
> 
> Reviewed-by has stronger connotations and implies I have in-depth
> knowledge of the subsystem/driver AND agree to the Reviewer's
> Statement.  I use Acked-by in this case as a weaker agreement after a
> shallow review of the patch based on its merits alone.

Note the "often a maintainer of the relevant code" bit.  And
"appropriate for inclusion into the kernel" means to me that you've
done the same level of review as Reviewed-by.  So I have very
different understanding of how Acked-by and Reviewed-by than you do.

That being said, no offence to you, but any kind of Acked-by or
Reviewed-by from you is not going to have as much weight as say, a
Reviewed-by: from someone like Jan Kara.  That's just because I don't
have a good sense to your technical ability, and so I'd be doing a
full review myself and not rely on your review at all....

Cheers,

					- Ted

P.S.  And if I find a problem in the patch, and someone had attached
their Acked-by or Reviewed-by to it, it would have the same negative
hit to their reputation either way.  Not a big deal if it happens only
once, or it's an esepcially tricky issue, but it if happens more than
once or is really blatent, I as the maintainer definitely do remember.