Re: [PATCH v2] docs: submitting-patches: Clarify that "reviewer" is a person

[Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+huawei@kernel.org>]

On Wed, 20 May 2026 17:48:47 +0200
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@oss.qualcomm.com> wrote:

> Common understanding of word "Reviewer" is: a person performing a review
> work [1]. Tools are not persons, thus cannot be reviewers in this term.
> Also tools cannot make statements and cannot take responsibility for the
> review.
> 
> Our docs already clearly mark that "Reviewed-by" must come from a
> person:
> 
>  - "By offering my Reviewed-by: tag, I state that:"
> 
>    Usage of first person "I" and word "state"
> 
>  - "A Reviewed-by tag is *a statement of opinion* that the patch is an
>     appropriate modification of the kernel without any remaining serious"
> 
>    Only a person can make a statement of opinion.
> 
>  - "Any interested reviewer (who has done the work) can offer a
>    Reviewed-by"
> 
>    A person can offer a tag thus above does not grant the tool
>    permission to offer a tag.
> 
> However this might not be enough, so let's clarify that only a person
> with a known identity can state the "Reviewer's statement of oversight".
> 
> Link: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/reviewer [1]
> Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
> Cc: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@kernel.org>
> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
> Cc: David Hildenbrand <david@kernel.org>
> Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
> Acked-by: Vlastimil Babka (SUSE) <vbabka@kernel.org>
> Acked-by: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org>
> Reviewed-by: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
> Acked-by: David Hildenbrand (Arm) <david@kernel.org>
> Reviewed-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
> Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@oss.qualcomm.com>

Makes sense to me.

Reviewed-by: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+huawei@kernel.org>

> ---
> 
> Changes in v2:
> 1. Add tags
> 2. Rephrase/simplify a bit commit msg. Rephrase title - drop "in
>    English".
> 3. Add "with known identity", suggested by David Hildenbrand. I retained
>    previous tags, assuming this change is within spirit of previous
>    version and there were no objections on the list.
> ---
>  Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst | 12 ++++++------
>  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst b/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst
> index d7290e208e72..cc6a1f73d7f2 100644
> --- a/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst
> +++ b/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst
> @@ -581,12 +581,12 @@ By offering my Reviewed-by: tag, I state that:
>  
>  A Reviewed-by tag is a statement of opinion that the patch is an
>  appropriate modification of the kernel without any remaining serious
> -technical issues.  Any interested reviewer (who has done the work) can
> -offer a Reviewed-by tag for a patch.  This tag serves to give credit to
> -reviewers and to inform maintainers of the degree of review which has been
> -done on the patch.  Reviewed-by: tags, when supplied by reviewers known to
> -understand the subject area and to perform thorough reviews, will normally
> -increase the likelihood of your patch getting into the kernel.
> +technical issues.  Any interested reviewer (who has done the work and is a
> +person with known identity) can offer a Reviewed-by tag for a patch.  This tag
> +serves to give credit to reviewers and to inform maintainers of the degree of
> +review which has been done on the patch.  Reviewed-by: tags, when supplied by
> +reviewers known to understand the subject area and to perform thorough reviews,
> +will normally increase the likelihood of your patch getting into the kernel.
>  
>  Both Tested-by and Reviewed-by tags, once received on mailing list from tester
>  or reviewer, should be added by author to the applicable patches when sending



Thanks,
Mauro