From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S933179AbXIFXiY (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Sep 2007 19:38:24 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S933102AbXIFXh6 (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Sep 2007 19:37:58 -0400 Received: from agminet01.oracle.com ([141.146.126.228]:33051 "EHLO agminet01.oracle.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932661AbXIFXh5 (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Sep 2007 19:37:57 -0400 Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2007 16:37:37 -0700 From: Randy Dunlap To: Andrew Morton Cc: mathieu.desnoyers@polymtl.ca, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [patch 1/6] Linux Kernel Markers - Architecture Independent Code Message-Id: <20070906163737.9cc91307.randy.dunlap@oracle.com> In-Reply-To: <20070906160429.629c9497.akpm@linux-foundation.org> References: <20070906200733.194442762@polymtl.ca> <20070906200825.893834634@polymtl.ca> <20070906160001.cfe48d78.randy.dunlap@oracle.com> <20070906160429.629c9497.akpm@linux-foundation.org> Organization: Oracle Linux Eng. X-Mailer: Sylpheed 2.4.2 (GTK+ 2.8.10; x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAQAAAAI= X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAQAAAAI= X-Whitelist: TRUE X-Whitelist: TRUE Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 6 Sep 2007 16:04:29 -0700 Andrew Morton wrote: > > On Thu, 6 Sep 2007 16:00:01 -0700 Randy Dunlap wrote: > > On Thu, 06 Sep 2007 16:07:34 -0400 Mathieu Desnoyers wrote: > > > > > Changelog: > > > - markers_mutex now nests inside module_mutex rather than the opposite. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Mathieu Desnoyers > > > Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig > > > Reviewed-by: Rusty Russell > > > Reviewed-by: "Frank Ch. Eigler" > > > > Documentation/SubmittingPatches recognizes Signed-off-by: and > > Acked-by:. Nothing about Reviewed-by. Quote: > > > > Acked-by: is not as formal as Signed-off-by:. It is a record that the acker > > has at least reviewed the patch and has indicated acceptance. > > > > Reviewed-by: carries no such connotation or indication IMO. > > Please use Acked-by if that's what these reviewers have done. > > Yeah. We will start introducing Reviewed-by: (I haven't yet quite worked > out how yet) but it will be a quite formal thing and it would be something > which the reviewer explicitly provided. For now, let's please stick with > acked-by (if those individuals did indeed send an acked-by) > - Thanks. I look forward to the explanation of Reviewed-by, what it means, and how it differs from Acked-by. --- ~Randy *** Remember to use Documentation/SubmitChecklist when testing your code ***