Re: [PATCH v3 0/3] Introduce EC-based watchdog

Guenter Roeck
2024-01-19T14:43:01Z

On 1/19/24 06:10, Łukasz Majczak wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 19, 2024 at 1:50 PM Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net> wrote:
>>
>> On 1/19/24 00:43, Lukasz Majczak wrote:
>>> Chromeos devices are equipped with the embedded controller (EC)
>>> that can be used as a watchdog. The following patches
>>> updates the structures and definitions required to
>>> communicate with EC-based watchdog and implements the
>>> driver itself.
>>>
>>> The previous version of this patch was sent here:
>>> https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-watchdog/list/?series=817925
>>>
>>> Changelog
>>> V2->V3:
>>> * drop "-drv" from driver name
>>> * use format #define<space>NAME<tab>value
>>>
>>
>> I am a bit lost here. You dropped my Reviewed-by: tags, even though
>> I specifically said that they applied with those changes made.
>> Also, according to the above patch 1/3 was not changed at all.
>>
>> What else did you change that warrants dropping the tags ?
>>
>> Guenter
>>
> The "-drv" change was related to patch 2 and 3, and I have used
> "format #define<space>NAME<tab>value" only in patch 3 (as
> ec_commands.h is mixing those)
> Sorry for dropping your "Reviewed-by" tag :( I've assumed (wrong) that
> I cannot take it for granted sending V3.

From Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst:

Both Tested-by and Reviewed-by tags, once received on mailing list from tester
or reviewer, should be added by author to the applicable patches when sending
next versions. However if the patch has changed substantially in following
version, these tags might not be applicable anymore and thus should be removed.
Usually removal of someone's Tested-by or Reviewed-by tags should be mentioned
in the patch changelog (after the '---' separator).

> Alos in such a case if there are changes in patch 2 and 3 and 1
> remains untouched shall I send only 2 and 3 in the next version ?
>

Again, from Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst:

... the patch (series) and its description should be self-contained.
This benefits both the maintainers and reviewers. Some reviewers
probably didn't even receive earlier versions of the patch.

Note that the same document also says:

Wait for a minimum of one week before resubmitting or pinging reviewers
- possibly longer during busy times like merge windows.

I could just send another series of Reviewed-by: tags, but quite frankly
by now I am wary that you might drop those again, so I guess I'll wait
a while to see if there is another version of the series.

Guenter