Re: [PATCH 1/1] KVM: pass through CPUID(0x80000006)

[Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@intel.com>]

On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 10:22:16AM -0700, Jon Cargille wrote:
> > I assume you want to say something like:
> 
> That's a much better commit message--thank you, Sean!
> 
> > Jim's tag is unnecessary, unless he was a middleman between Eric and Jon,
> 
> I appreciate the feedback; I was trying to capture that Jim "was in the
> patch's delivery path." (per submitting-patches.rst), but it sounds like that
> is intended for a more explicit middle-man relationship than I had
> understood.

Yep, exactly.

> Jim reviewed it internally before sending, which sounds like it should be
> expressed as an "Acked-by" instead; is that accurate?

Or Reviewed-by.  The proper (and easiest) way to handle this is to use
whatever tag Jim (or any other reviewer) provides, e.g. submitting-patches
states, under 12) When to use Acked-by:, Cc:, and Co-developed-by:, states:

  If a person has had the opportunity to comment on a patch, but has not
  provided such comments, you may optionally add a ``Cc:`` tag to the patch.
  This is the only tag which might be added without an explicit action by the
  person it names

I.e. all *-by tags are only supposed to be used with explicit permission
from the named person.  This doesn't mean the person has to literally write
Reviewed-by or whatever (though that's usually the case), but it does mean
you should confirm it's ok to add a tag, e.g. if someone replies "LGTM" and
you want to interpret that as a Reviewed-by or Acked-by, explicitly ask if
it's ok to add the tag.