From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (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 65BA312E44 for ; Wed, 1 Nov 2023 20:00:37 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=none Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1A60AC433C8; Wed, 1 Nov 2023 20:00:36 +0000 (UTC) Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2023 16:00:35 -0400 From: Steven Rostedt To: Mukesh Ojha Cc: LKML , Linux Trace Kernel , Masami Hiramatsu , Mark Rutland Subject: Re: [PATCH] eventfs: Fix kerneldoc of eventfs_remove_rec() Message-ID: <20231101160035.12824b55@gandalf.local.home> In-Reply-To: <9d71fc3b-f7a9-9f23-6fbe-a7665954cd30@quicinc.com> References: <20231030121523.0b2225a7@gandalf.local.home> <9d71fc3b-f7a9-9f23-6fbe-a7665954cd30@quicinc.com> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.19.1 (GTK+ 2.24.33; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-trace-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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. 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 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. 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. Thanks, -- Steve