From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753236AbbJPFva (ORCPT ); Fri, 16 Oct 2015 01:51:30 -0400 Received: from mail-pa0-f51.google.com ([209.85.220.51]:35567 "EHLO mail-pa0-f51.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752440AbbJPFv2 (ORCPT ); Fri, 16 Oct 2015 01:51:28 -0400 Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2015 11:21:18 +0530 From: Viresh Kumar To: Saravana Kannan Cc: Rafael Wysocki , linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, open list Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 4/5] cpufreq: create cpu/cpufreq/policyX directories Message-ID: <20151016055118.GR19018@linux> References: <594e7c8e74ca56cef58d29327518f5223e89e208.1444924623.git.viresh.kumar@linaro.org> <561FFDA7.3080903@codeaurora.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <561FFDA7.3080903@codeaurora.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 15-10-15, 12:25, Saravana Kannan wrote: > Btw, does a Review-by have an implicit Acked-by? I have attended a session at Linaro Connect where this was discussed and the answer was: Acked-by: is more of a general agreement from the person that he is fine with the patch, but he might not have done a very careful review and he isn't really responsible for the patch's content. Reviewed-by: is a more strict tag and implies that the reviewer has reviewed it at his best and he is as much responsible for the content of the patch as the author. > Kinda unrelated to this patch, but shouldn't this function undo the > symlinks is has created so far before returning? Otherwise, we'd be > leaving around broken symlinks. Hmm, yeah. Will fix it separately. -- viresh