From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.2 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 19F77C3815B for ; Wed, 15 Apr 2020 17:32:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E7AF820857 for ; Wed, 15 Apr 2020 17:32:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2411273AbgDORce (ORCPT ); Wed, 15 Apr 2020 13:32:34 -0400 Received: from mga07.intel.com ([134.134.136.100]:2222 "EHLO mga07.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S2411254AbgDORcX (ORCPT ); Wed, 15 Apr 2020 13:32:23 -0400 IronPort-SDR: wvHLy714rTSlYcNhNlv+aRA5aHOerVTU7dJQbUch7nE3n99YpLYvKoOKz7fK7tI78g8g28zIiP jFDC2ytqc2FQ== X-Amp-Result: SKIPPED(no attachment in message) X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False Received: from fmsmga001.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.23]) by orsmga105.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 15 Apr 2020 10:32:21 -0700 IronPort-SDR: UPm9YQA1HstvxIqgWlU3zNpxyUt+ZwupuVkwia5v26qAtu66LLTG2cj0kvhRT5lV/Dwn4+r2AP c2pza6vfIk6Q== X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.72,387,1580803200"; d="scan'208";a="363732914" Received: from sjchrist-coffee.jf.intel.com (HELO linux.intel.com) ([10.54.74.202]) by fmsmga001.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 15 Apr 2020 10:32:21 -0700 Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2020 10:32:21 -0700 From: Sean Christopherson To: Jon Cargille Cc: Paolo Bonzini , Vitaly Kuznetsov , Wanpeng Li , Jim Mattson , Joerg Roedel , Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , Borislav Petkov , "H. Peter Anvin" , x86@kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Eric Northup , Eric Northup Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] KVM: pass through CPUID(0x80000006) Message-ID: <20200415173221.GC30627@linux.intel.com> References: <20200415012320.236065-1-jcargill@google.com> <20200415023726.GD12547@linux.intel.com> <20200415025105.GE12547@linux.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: kvm@vger.kernel.org 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.