From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from outgoing.mit.edu (outgoing-auth-1.mit.edu [18.9.28.11]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 264618F52; Mon, 31 Oct 2022 21:33:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from letrec.thunk.org (guestnat-104-133-8-97.corp.google.com [104.133.8.97] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) (User authenticated as tytso@ATHENA.MIT.EDU) by outgoing.mit.edu (8.14.7/8.12.4) with ESMTP id 29VLTnJE030919 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 31 Oct 2022 17:29:51 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mit.edu; s=outgoing; t=1667251792; bh=19DsnjZBbcrjzitVSUwFR+54FSioY0uGtcL5hkBs6P0=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To; b=HDmg7PWAUJ2Bc9m+cr78LTFXXI9ruRt98mg/Dv3ubnv3g+BYcRxW97Tmtgd0EQD+q Bxhdc+kwBtuTClfW4Mf8EF3/dBuEihHCRoewXN+8cUWqYpHaIIs4BTjdP7M54xVehc Xr9DukHUqkxEUOHT1vUFgI4MAen3d1Ex14R/L4uDtiNtFfxOE0IpsjJ7Z32ddX9mli 9HW3VEIq1RLMjKSymI0aabK6xPahpPY3z9xSh1giA9N8Y5M6Wgc5HOszD9DggrDG57 ntxZxNcA0cyVk4DN1A91bjooK56BanWcueA7QBhE5ofc63aGRu5lXR0q72ZVZcppI3 vemdwPmLqgSAA== Received: by letrec.thunk.org (Postfix, from userid 15806) id B53EB8C2A08; Mon, 31 Oct 2022 17:29:48 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2022 17:29:48 -0400 From: "Theodore Ts'o" To: James Bottomley Cc: Konstantin Ryabitsev , Neil Armstrong , Lee Jones , Krzysztof Kozlowski , tools@linux.kernel.org, users@linux.kernel.org Subject: Re: DCO chain of custody revisited (was Re: [PATCH v4 08/11] mfd: qcom-pm8xxx: drop unused PM8018 compatible) Message-ID: References: <20220928-mdm9615-dt-schema-fixes-v4-0-dac2dfaac703@linaro.org> <20220928-mdm9615-dt-schema-fixes-v4-8-dac2dfaac703@linaro.org> <6858acf3-eb90-41aa-b714-a2ceb6afe9db@linaro.org> <20221031165842.vxr4kp6h7qnkc53l@meerkat.local> <7b25ea15b6e508f435ca36967d9f4d4408f9a690.camel@HansenPartnership.com> <20221031172319.znosu3gleyipeje5@meerkat.local> <9214fe10dee071bfc637fe1d90e251aa7f62480a.camel@HansenPartnership.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: tools@linux.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <9214fe10dee071bfc637fe1d90e251aa7f62480a.camel@HansenPartnership.com> On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 01:33:27PM -0400, James Bottomley wrote: > Who put it there does not matter, so it's not really a problem that > needs solving. > > However, there is a problem if b4 is preserving Reviewed-by tags for > patches with material changes ... the review has to be redone and thus > the tag should be lost. You can only keep Reviewed-by tags for > cosmetic changes (or obviously patches which don't change from version > to version). What I've seen some reviewers do is to request some additional changes (please add more details in the comments, or please drop the test if the poitner is non-NULL before calling kfree(), and then they add the Reviewed-by tag. In fact, in some cases they explicitly say, "please fix these things and then you may add "Reviewed-by: Jon Q. Random " (For example, IIRC, Jan Kara does this a fair amount.) I understand that b4 can't possibly parse english, and if it does start gaining Skynet abilities, we've got bigger problems, but suffice it to say, there *are* times the Reviewed-By tag should be kept even though non-commit-description and/or non-commit changes were made. - Ted