From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: slash.tmp@free.fr (Mason) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 20:37:23 +0200 Subject: [PATCH v4] twd: Don't set CLOCK_EVT_FEAT_C3STOP unconditionally In-Reply-To: <20151008182254.GJ32532@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> References: <56123BD0.8010005@sigmadesigns.com> <56124035.6080107@sigmadesigns.com> <561247DF.1000308@sigmadesigns.com> <20151005103539.GC19064@leverpostej> <5612649C.5020401@sigmadesigns.com> <20151008171616.GG7275@leverpostej> <5616AA2D.2070101@free.fr> <20151008174333.GI32532@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <5616B2F8.3010602@free.fr> <20151008182254.GJ32532@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> Message-ID: <5616B7E3.50507@free.fr> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 08/10/2015 20:22, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > On Thu, Oct 08, 2015 at 08:16:24PM +0200, Mason wrote: >> On 08/10/2015 19:43, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: >>> On Thu, Oct 08, 2015 at 07:38:53PM +0200, Mason wrote: >>>> On 08/10/2015 19:16, Mark Rutland wrote: >>>>> Otherwise this looks ok. If you can respin with the above wording, and >>>>> s/twd-never-stops/always-on/ in the patch, you can add: >>>>> >>>>> Acked-by: Mark Rutland >>>> >>>> Wouldn't you feel like going all-in and Signing-off? ;-) >>> >>> Then I'd reject it, because it would be wrong. >>> >>> Documentation/SubmittingPatches: [snip] >> >> Could someone explain the difference between Acked-by and >> Reviewed-by? > > Again, I could quote from the above file, but you already have a copy > of it locally, so you could just read that version instead. Section 13. Acked-by: [...] is a record that the acker has at least reviewed the patch and has indicated acceptance. Reviewed-by: indicates that the patch has been reviewed and found acceptable according to the Reviewer's Statement IIUC Acked-by is stronger than Reviewed-by? Regards.