From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.remote-ip=192.198.163.13 ARC-Seal: i=1; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc20261015; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; t=1793879620; b=d0OBqsvmrb5jllhJSNAzV5wDyo9IccYcEG92YuHBdSMbbEf6SOlgi3LxQ4LL7Kq3mVA4 kJJ/nOVFqFEEZj8ENsSPXlor6BA5wdPsm7QJalpd1sPMpXU9m6RMtbWBELMrLlywfGhh3 Pbd5wxHFrnx7Tz/io50s+2sU+NcRAmZHwxUDwV7vS4++N0DjC/pP9gktB5gtU96Bz6pMv Cska0jXZT+V0AIGRJbTDGDJKBxdEMRjtlFMGXpOnOp4doRl9FavGKJZTMYwj43K40kMSF lteFug9XzGg3ft1gNUwtm5/skXYv7wqtUbfbxLohp5Jn5LW2Pyga1yxxEufzG7BvQxA== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc20261015; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1793879620; h=DMARC-Filter:DKIM-Signature:X-CSE-ConnectionGUID:X-CSE-MsgGUID: X-IronPort-AV:X-IronPort-AV:Received:X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: X-CSE-MsgGUID:X-ExtLoop1:X-IronPort-AV:Received:Date:From:To:Cc: Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version:Content-Type: Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To:Organization; bh=Pj9iaBPmqdv/BlcqSHugBwJUfcba4Pba+SAzc1+Jd7g=; b=AIpkJ/1eEbpgrJT+vPy6hBZdfkaCajMIxYxKHyq216OXReoxq5VUdfC8sM64uK/zStUv gGfG8pzsn/MWsbx6Ek3v74HApNNuyPNFyrNTtJG89oxkENu3OOASRBagsPl5Xb5QLx5OU GG1L4ixHHIlZQdgBRl9kMK6RmOGqMJixIyGymS/yfuGTB3ZGtYL8+f7r/cGZ8JX95cAIX DvR2oPW+LtyGKXHBTvRsWgaYYW/oKpOaUjBqIiZ6R9Mav1Jh8NuHyKYzgER5nu7rVTTgQ 1OSu35N9pYzNPaZNmHn6nPVw739PVcI+2NGDKnNC/8LFNnuRvDf3tfc1sY1BuQTqp5g== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass header.from=linux.intel.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.intel.com; dkim=pass header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=Intel header.b="fkBLuL/I"; arc=none smtp.remote-ip=192.198.163.13 Received: from mgamail.intel.com (mgamail.intel.com [192.198.163.13]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-ECDSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1FAB2606A328; Thu, 5 Nov 2026 11:53:38 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 smtp.subspace.kernel.org 1FAB2606A328 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.intel.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.intel.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key, unprotected) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=Intel header.b=fkBLuL/I DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1793879620; x=1825415620; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references: mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=hk7iYDPvzCJ8cyId3xaaMshRR8SFZ2MT0MF74wQE6iM=; b=fkBLuL/IPJl/doXC9Cl3SEWxwI7YJMjbve+5gmD73HX7gjp83TtrB+Aa pXNT428BuQz4i/MbZw7g4BDH46t7firEm7qndfFgbWfq6XxUI/LFD7ox4 e+XmdVuNMWaIO7dMSQ9YiL9Myyel2AudSMjJI1DhkPS3kmnoJqpGoLbX5 af4BnFggHY0mr7iL+ab6WP6gzVFtI8e+e3fbJzZ5bzcNDo4A1YZoh57WT /WbqRC2kE2U52lnC317DLR1M3aO0rJVu3/m2IUgDjQJ0h3heTae6ubNVr OpSSvQXNltBXlGNUi95WIZeQ+/oHp4TEUgkP+RpRRRjjY/ynmfXX6jiFE Q==; X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: ux5MDRDkTKimq4gdIemr0g== X-CSE-MsgGUID: Yv7hYmEzTD2YK66WO6exrA== X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6800,10657,11956"; a="2657972" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.27,197,1787036400"; d="scan'208";a="2657972" Received: from fmviesa007.fm.intel.com ([10.60.135.147]) by fmvoesa107.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 05 Nov 2026 03:53:39 -0800 X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: WdtljnQFQbyVVhuPzGLNFw== X-CSE-MsgGUID: z06fTSAORbu2TUXlmWlOvA== X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.27,197,1787036400"; d="scan'208";a="7397635" Received: from amilburn-desk.amilburn-desk (HELO localhost) ([10.245.244.144]) by smtpauth.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 05 Nov 2026 03:53:37 -0800 Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2026 13:53:34 +0200 From: Andy Shevchenko To: Wolfram Sang Cc: Krzysztof Kozlowski , Jonathan Corbet , Shuah Khan , Randy Dunlap , workflows@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] docs: submitting-patches: Clarify half-baked review tags Message-ID: References: <20261105082729.19622-2-krzysztof.kozlowski@oss.qualcomm.com> <35983c5a-7deb-4b0e-9bd4-981754343200@oss.qualcomm.com> <8abb2394-5210-495f-8420-a02bd16ff466@oss.qualcomm.com> X-Mailing-List: linux-doc@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: List-Owner: Precedence: list MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - c/o Alberga Business Park, 6 krs, Bertel Jungin Aukio 5, 02600 Espoo On Thu, Nov 05, 2026 at 01:19:14PM +0200, Wolfram Sang wrote: > > > >> "Reviewed-by:, instead, indicates that *the patch* has been reviewed and > > >> found acceptable according to the Reviewer's Statement:" > > > > > > So, for the SPI patch: if someone spent time and reviewed the complex > > > core changes, but only 2 out of dozens of drivers, this would be an Ack > > > according to you. I would, however, understand that this person doesn't > > > > No, and I explained this in this commit msg. That person reviewed the > > MAIN concept of the patch. > > With that MAIN concept emphasized, I am okay with your reasoning and > agree. Before (I cite, upmost paragraph) "*the patch*" could be > interpreted as 100% of the patch (including dumb driver conversions). ...which may lead to discouragement of reviewing such a patch. At least that's how I read the point. > > "Reviewing pieces of the patch while ignoring the main part of it, is > > much closer to Acknowledgment, thus Ack, and "Reviewed-by" credit should > > not be applicable." > > I agree. As stated before, I don't care so much. I am glad you do :) > I'll happily take the "# subpart" potion of your patch here. > > > Nowhere in my patch here I said you CANNOT review part of the patch or > > cannot even leave Rb tag for such case, right? What are we discussing > > now, exactly? > > I hope the misunderstanding has been resolved in the first paragraph. > > > Do you agree that if person skips the main point of the patch, the hard > > part, and reviews only less important part, that looks more as an Ack, > > than Rb, considering how "Reviewer's statement of oversight" is worded? > > Sure. It is not so important to me, but yes, I agree. -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko