From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.2 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, NICE_REPLY_A,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3840AC433F5 for ; Wed, 8 Sep 2021 10:33:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1AB4D60F70 for ; Wed, 8 Sep 2021 10:33:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1348884AbhIHKeK (ORCPT ); Wed, 8 Sep 2021 06:34:10 -0400 Received: from relaydlg-01.paragon-software.com ([81.5.88.159]:58507 "EHLO relaydlg-01.paragon-software.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S234958AbhIHKeJ (ORCPT ); Wed, 8 Sep 2021 06:34:09 -0400 Received: from dlg2.mail.paragon-software.com (vdlg-exch-02.paragon-software.com [172.30.1.105]) by relaydlg-01.paragon-software.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AD687808EB; Wed, 8 Sep 2021 13:33:00 +0300 (MSK) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=paragon-software.com; s=mail; t=1631097180; bh=bEIHNRfkQLVOb8OVfwOJchCdmltfMN+AbEre3I6fz6U=; h=Subject:To:CC:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=RfGspP6RecjiDoOt+E94QdUT2MjC/0P05nwiP/+/Dj+5rQXWoOOuuhszKZj98AMgU 3plIxLQBskJiHs9jAvk5TJhS0mz69P7eAT/fNVzeY7sqt8HrQOTb4F5G3c/WJHkptS pgjiP2ByU5s4uQN88b1MicCYvhZuJy4SS5043OIY= Received: from [192.168.211.176] (192.168.211.176) by vdlg-exch-02.paragon-software.com (172.30.1.105) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2176.2; Wed, 8 Sep 2021 13:33:00 +0300 Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/9] fs/ntfs3: Use new mount api and change some opts To: Andy Shevchenko , Kari Argillander CC: "ntfs3@lists.linux.dev" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org" References: <20210829095614.50021-1-kari.argillander@gmail.com> <20210907073618.bpz3fmu7jcx5mlqh@kari-VirtualBox> <69c8ab24-9443-59ad-d48d-7765b29f28f9@paragon-software.com> From: Konstantin Komarov Message-ID: Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2021 13:32:59 +0300 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.14.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [192.168.211.176] X-ClientProxiedBy: vobn-exch-01.paragon-software.com (172.30.72.13) To vdlg-exch-02.paragon-software.com (172.30.1.105) Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org On 08.09.2021 12:00, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Tue, Sep 7, 2021 at 11:47 PM Kari Argillander > wrote: >> On Tuesday, September 7, 2021, Andy Shevchenko >> (andy.shevchenko@gmail.com) wrote: >>> On Tuesday, September 7, 2021, Konstantin Komarov wrote: >>>> On 07.09.2021 10:36, Kari Argillander wrote: > > ... > >>>> Yes, everything else seems good. >>>> We tested patches locally - no regression was >>> >>> The formal answer in such case should also contain the Tested-by tag. I would suggest you to read the Submitting Patches document (available in the Linux kernel source tree). >> >> He is a maintainer so he can add tags when he picks this up. > > It's a good practice to do so. Moreover, it's better to do it > patch-by-patch, so tools like `b4` can cope with tags for *anybody* > who will use it in automated way. > >> This is not >> really relevant here. > > Why not? > >> Yes it should be good to include that but I have already >> sended v4 which he has not tested. So I really cannot put this tag for him. >> So at the end he really should not even put it here. > > For v4 I agree with you. My answer doesn't contain Tested-by tag because author of patch already said that there will be next version of patch. Thanks for Submitting Patches document suggestion. > >> Also usually the maintainers will always make their own tests and usually >> they will not even bother with a tested-by tag. > > If it's their own code, yes, if it's others', why not? See above as well. > >> Or do you say to me that I >> should go read Submitting Patches document as I'm the one who submit >> this? > > It's always good to refresh memory, so why not? :-) >