From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Monjalon Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] ethdev: fix MAC address replay Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2017 11:25:30 +0100 Message-ID: <1679033.GODGAxT5Vg@xps13> References: <20170123235020.19641-1-jonshin@cisco.com> <5cd19f6a-311c-b0fe-5d6c-ee757ac2e86e@intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Cc: Steve Shin , dev@dpdk.org To: Ferruh Yigit , Igor Ryzhov Return-path: Received: from mail-wm0-f51.google.com (mail-wm0-f51.google.com [74.125.82.51]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3313DB6D for ; Wed, 25 Jan 2017 11:25:32 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail-wm0-f51.google.com with SMTP id d140so50646340wmd.0 for ; Wed, 25 Jan 2017 02:25:32 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <5cd19f6a-311c-b0fe-5d6c-ee757ac2e86e@intel.com> List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" 2017-01-24 13:21, Ferruh Yigit: > On 1/24/2017 10:09 AM, Igor Ryzhov wrote: > > Thank you Steve. > > > > > I never did it before and I don't know if I have rights for that, but: > > > > Acked-by: Igor Ryzhov > > > Unrelated to the patch itself, but since it has been mentioned, let me > share what I know, I believe Thomas or others will correct me if I am wrong: > > - Everyone can Ack. > And this is useful information for maintainers, so it is something > good when more people review and ack. Please do. > > - Multiple ack or review is better. > > - But each Ack does not have same weight, maintainer decides on this > weight, based on contribution of the person who ack'ed. > > - There is slight difference between Acked-by and Reviewed-by: > > -- Acked-by: Kind of asking for patch to be applied, saying this patch > is good and please get it. > > -- Reviewed-by: Saying I have done the review at my best and patch looks > good to me. > > Acked-by has slightly more responsibility than Reviewed-by. > > If you are not maintainer of that field, and not have strong opinion > about that patch to be merged, it is possible to prefer Reviewed-by > against Acked-by. > > But overall both are good, and definitely better than not saying > anything at all. We should definitely better document these tags. My view is that Reviewed-by is stronger because it says you really checked the patch. Acked-by means you agree with the intent and you trust the author. Any of these tags will be stronger if it is delivered by a maintainer. As conclusion, here you should stress you took the review job with a Reviewed-by tag. A maintainer is more inclined to use the Acked-by tag, even if he does a review. As the maintainer of ethdev, I thank you to take the review job so I won't have to wonder which kind of regression could be in the patch. I will just check the intent and will rely on your Reviewed-by.