From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (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 1E40B284B37; Mon, 18 May 2026 02:13:07 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1779070388; cv=none; b=gHXv/1/0SVNFcEsSwmvW4qTYNLZbHSm7MxZlDjaKKLau44TrHwde96kWMJgXy664so518Xoh2/d/+Yn2+bpIvHBbXYOEzL7L8e+yPcrwW+4bhbppofhO+U0PxTTmoPOgVkD1wYJpC6l09gAo/rb1WrRSrs5UN/2W88FOt0yquc8= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1779070388; c=relaxed/simple; bh=WjHNa0FoiaQdHW18iiWXHKLjANeJRQAfD+5P8pmgExM=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=LfpQ3/vnFOgGcYgB0CECLpDgxtcxZ0qwYgKnMs5NtsrlHsG87HwJ/XCLEp2X2o1qufFQ1rKwOP6QcdznJDSOODa5YF308w8pKkh4NTXGCT4TZkorl/fxnQlWMDRG+cudu/+9VW4BmFcaqXq6XD3vilBn6oinR3cppdhmljxK8Rw= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=OejwYcUr; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="OejwYcUr" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 32E62C2BCB0; Mon, 18 May 2026 02:13:07 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1779070387; bh=WjHNa0FoiaQdHW18iiWXHKLjANeJRQAfD+5P8pmgExM=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=OejwYcUrhLIO8SpbqByfJKumVFzARB2AZGi+Py/ogeJL75UwbtFIFW9B9rdwUcgwZ jqEjwsqgsWrZL8D9XqCI8M8LEIL4azoal6lbHSEHO0VI4Dvzg2lpwLDNAEZC+CE7Pb tu3wI/uyFbZCqmdXuJYS+bP/H9dOw5givn8fcQ620tiMu44fOD9DeY4rfeS6QoydTs 16Zlqi6P9nhzNyUFOl1F1SHPz7/b6F+XJMfexizvKCuNy8DQIBrW0bVFe7ZMPnKT5v 7TbD8b4vwttu7wrCg0xOdBuFDSTCD6xzCUeUbNnuvd+XH3f0QRlu8wYy98/PRtyFI+ 0V6vqtW4yqJ5Q== From: SeongJae Park To: Roman Gushchin Cc: SeongJae Park , Greg KH , Konstantin Ryabitsev , Guenter Roeck , Krzysztof Kozlowski , sashiko-bot@kernel.org, sashiko-reviews@lists.linux.dev, sashiko@lists.linux.dev, Linux Kernel Workflows , Linux Kernel Mailing List , devicetree@vger.kernel.org, kfree@google.com Subject: Re: Stop false review statements Date: Sun, 17 May 2026 19:12:58 -0700 Message-ID: <20260518021300.89388-1-sj@kernel.org> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.47.3 In-Reply-To: <0902F8E6-C495-40A1-975D-92D3B72D44AE@linux.dev> References: Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: devicetree@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On Sat, 16 May 2026 08:49:39 -0700 Roman Gushchin wrote: > > > On May 16, 2026, at 8:45 AM, Greg KH wrote: > > > > On Sat, May 16, 2026 at 08:41:43AM -0700, Roman Gushchin wrote: > >> > >>>> On May 16, 2026, at 8:20 AM, Konstantin Ryabitsev wrote: > >>> > >>> On Sat, May 16, 2026 at 05:11:28AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote: > >>>>> On Sat, May 16, 2026 at 10:05:02AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: [...] > >> The goal here is to inform maintainers that sashiko has successfully reviewed the patch > >> and there were no findings, otherwise maintainers have to go to the web site and check the status. Yes, this will be helpful. I also think notifying review failures (usually due to patch applying failure) or general review results summary for every case (maybe opt-in?) would also be helpful. > > > > That's fine. > > > >> I’m not attached to any specific form of it, I thought Reviewed-by is the most obvious form. > >> And we use Reported-by: tags with various tooling for years. > > > > Reported-by: shows the existance of a problem that some tool found, a > > subtle difference here. > > > >> What do you think is the best form? > >> > >> I’ll pause sending reviewed-by tags until we have a discussion and agreement here. > > > > Just say it in some other text form, that our tools will not pick up. > > Like: > > Tool XXXX reports that all is good: > > https://.... > > > > or something like that? > > Sure, works for me. +1. I was also feeling Reviewed-by: is at least controversial. Thanks, SJ [...]