From: "Vlastimil Babka (SUSE)" <vbabka@kernel.org>
To: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@oss.qualcomm.com>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org>,
workflows@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
David Hildenbrand <david@kernel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] docs: submitting-patches: Clarify that in English "reviewer" is a person
Date: Sat, 16 May 2026 16:39:45 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ce1e5e9b-83d0-4971-aee3-dc5a8f85ce22@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260516123846.63413-2-krzysztof.kozlowski@oss.qualcomm.com>
On 5/16/26 14:38, Krzysztof Kozlowski 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 ("A Reviewed-by tag is a statement of
> opinion"), since making a statement needs some sort of conscious mind.
>
> 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 is not enough and apparently English is not that precise,
> so let's clarify that only a person 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>
> Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@oss.qualcomm.com>
I agree with the intent that the tag is for people (whether they use a tool
or not to help them). We also don't put "Tested-by: kernel test robot" or
syzkaller on every commit that they test and find no bugs. Review is also
not just about absence of bugs, but agreeing with the larger design and
whether the change makes sense to do in the first place.
So whether that's achieved with this particular wording or differently,
Acked-by: Vlastimil Babka (SUSE) <vbabka@kernel.org>
>
> ---
>
> I find it silly to need to describe English, but it seems it is needed.
>
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/fd3b2ca7-4d64-4c4b-98a3-7d3285fa6826@roeck-us.net/
> ---
> Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst | 8 ++++----
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst b/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst
> index d7290e208e72..a989de43f3db 100644
> --- a/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst
> +++ b/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst
> @@ -581,10 +581,10 @@ 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
> +technical issues. Any interested reviewer (who has done the work and is a
> +person) 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.
>
prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-05-16 14:39 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-05-16 12:38 [PATCH] docs: submitting-patches: Clarify that in English "reviewer" is a person Krzysztof Kozlowski
2026-05-16 14:39 ` Vlastimil Babka (SUSE) [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=ce1e5e9b-83d0-4971-aee3-dc5a8f85ce22@kernel.org \
--to=vbabka@kernel.org \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=corbet@lwn.net \
--cc=david@kernel.org \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=krzysztof.kozlowski@oss.qualcomm.com \
--cc=linux-doc@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux@roeck-us.net \
--cc=skhan@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=workflows@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox