From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (lindbergh.monkeyblade.net [23.128.96.19]) (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 AB61B6FB5 for ; Thu, 2 Nov 2023 06:36:02 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=quicinc.com header.i=@quicinc.com header.b="X/YRAJhj" Received: from mx0b-0031df01.pphosted.com (mx0b-0031df01.pphosted.com [205.220.180.131]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F3C3D128; Wed, 1 Nov 2023 23:35:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pps.filterd (m0279870.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-0031df01.pphosted.com (8.17.1.19/8.17.1.19) with ESMTP id 3A24Hib5011674; Thu, 2 Nov 2023 06:35:47 GMT DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=quicinc.com; h=message-id : date : mime-version : subject : to : cc : references : from : in-reply-to : content-type : content-transfer-encoding; s=qcppdkim1; bh=Z1hzAccBs35bbFDTQLkaAfIUEDshACC647nEMxIden4=; b=X/YRAJhj6Ho+Bc9iQHCjuBWdZ7ythyE39QQFN4qTGWJ4ysG4103l1zoRyjQ5RJvDM3gs KWbH2oDO3okAjKPo1WxD43EAvLtVsHWNhVN4qMWJ5Xo8hI9e7xhK1XlSW89kR8+9JW19 nnp94rWbbBWRirj1lOfxnrZ/EME/bF+WfG77niqH52D/YDRXtggWOgNmcNXYbk6zaNhD GJ4+0pP69I52ORwHLGfsvUBYf/fvyXeFXslATUBGHiLvcsJAX0bOzWLprv+jMP3bG4yv LluNeLjoC1K6CvcOu7aGBelYjjSNZ/TlxDm2aFzSOiCjaoeUY3SySNuNu9ejYmKsfNw+ tg== Received: from nasanppmta01.qualcomm.com (i-global254.qualcomm.com [199.106.103.254]) by mx0a-0031df01.pphosted.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 3u3y5y0q7m-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 02 Nov 2023 06:35:46 +0000 Received: from nasanex01c.na.qualcomm.com (nasanex01c.na.qualcomm.com [10.45.79.139]) by NASANPPMTA01.qualcomm.com (8.17.1.5/8.17.1.5) with ESMTPS id 3A26ZjXs000469 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 2 Nov 2023 06:35:46 GMT Received: from [10.216.63.119] (10.80.80.8) by nasanex01c.na.qualcomm.com (10.45.79.139) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.2.1118.39; Wed, 1 Nov 2023 23:35:43 -0700 Message-ID: <0be16a8e-5f4f-4c26-d6b1-c090accfac5c@quicinc.com> Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2023 12:05:33 +0530 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-trace-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.13.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH] eventfs: Fix kerneldoc of eventfs_remove_rec() To: Steven Rostedt CC: LKML , Linux Trace Kernel , Masami Hiramatsu , Mark Rutland References: <20231030121523.0b2225a7@gandalf.local.home> <9d71fc3b-f7a9-9f23-6fbe-a7665954cd30@quicinc.com> <20231101160035.12824b55@gandalf.local.home> Content-Language: en-US From: Mukesh Ojha In-Reply-To: <20231101160035.12824b55@gandalf.local.home> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [10.80.80.8] X-ClientProxiedBy: nasanex01b.na.qualcomm.com (10.46.141.250) To nasanex01c.na.qualcomm.com (10.45.79.139) X-QCInternal: smtphost X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=nai engine=6200 definitions=5800 signatures=585085 X-Proofpoint-GUID: JI0hggNqoyt6RMyP3qkVkpNEcpctw3Sb X-Proofpoint-ORIG-GUID: JI0hggNqoyt6RMyP3qkVkpNEcpctw3Sb X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=baseguard engine=ICAP:2.0.272,Aquarius:18.0.987,Hydra:6.0.619,FMLib:17.11.176.26 definitions=2023-11-01_23,2023-11-01_02,2023-05-22_02 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 malwarescore=0 impostorscore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 mlxlogscore=831 adultscore=0 phishscore=0 clxscore=1015 priorityscore=1501 spamscore=0 bulkscore=0 suspectscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2310240000 definitions=main-2311020050 On 11/2/2023 1:30 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Mon, 30 Oct 2023 21:57:13 +0530 > Mukesh Ojha wrote: > >> On 10/30/2023 9:45 PM, Steven Rostedt wrote: >>> From: "Steven Rostedt (Google)" >>> >>> The eventfs_remove_rec() had some missing parameters in the kerneldoc >>> comment above it. Also, rephrase the description a bit more to have a bit >>> more correct grammar. >>> >>> Fixes: 5790b1fb3d672 ("eventfs: Remove eventfs_file and just use eventfs_inode"); >>> Reported-by: kernel test robot >>> Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/oe-kbuild-all/202310052216.4SgqasWo-lkp@intel.com/ >>> Signed-off-by: Steven Rostedt (Google) >> >> Reviewed-by: Mukesh Ojha > > Hi Mukesh! > > First, I want to thank you for your reviews. We certainly need more > reviewers. > > But I need to also state that "Reviewed-by" tags should not be sent so > lightly. The only times a Reviewed-by tag should be sent is if you > participated in the discussion of the code, you have authored some of > the code that is being modified, or are marked as a reviewer of the code in > the MAINTAINERS file. Thanks Steven for writing a suggestion note for me. I will try to participate and take this in a good way..but i thought for easier change where there is no discussion is needed., it is fine to add if you have spent time in checking the code and change is proper. > > For example, you added to the discussion here: > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/65dcdd9c-a75b-4fe7-bdcf-471a5602db20@linaro.org/ > > And adding your Reviewed-by tag is appropriate. > > But when a maintainer receives a Reviewed-by from someone they don't know, > without any discussion in the patch, it may make that maintainer think that > the person sending the Reviewed-by is only out to get listed in the LWN > "Reviewed-by" count. I understand.. > > I review other developers' code all the time, and unless the code touches > something I worked on or I'm marked as a reviewer in the MAINTAINERS file, > I do not send a Reviewed-by tag unless I added some input to the patch in > question. Will keep this in mind. To get involve in LKML discussion, Sending Reviewed-by may not be important but the discussions/engagement/contribution is . > > My advice to you is to keep up the reviewing, I appreciate it (I really > do!), but don't send out Reviewed-by tags unless you are marked as a > reviewer of the code, or participated in a discussion on that code. Sure, thanks, will try to do my bit. -Mukesh > > Thanks, > > -- Steve >