Re: [PATCH] perf buildid-cache: Add test for PE executable

[Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com>]

On Fri, Feb 26, 2021 at 08:47:36PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> Em Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 09:35:04PM +0100, Jiri Olsa escreveu:
> > On Wed, Feb 24, 2021 at 02:59:16PM -0500, Nicholas Fraser wrote:
> > > From 9fd0b3889f00ad13662879767d833309d8a035b6 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> > > From: Nicholas Fraser <nfraser@codeweavers.com>
> > > Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2021 13:24:03 -0500
> > > Subject: [PATCH] perf buildid-cache: Add test for PE executable
> > > 
> > > This builds on the previous changes to tests/shell/buildid.sh, adding
> > > tests for a PE file. It adds it to the build-id cache manually and, if
> > > Wine is available, runs it under "perf record" and verifies that it was
> > > added automatically.
> > > 
> > > If wine is not installed, only warnings are printed; the test can still
> > > exit 0.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Nicholas Fraser <nfraser@codeweavers.com>
> > 
> > works nicely now, thanks
> > 
> > Acked-by: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com>
> 
> Thanks for checking it, but if you did a review, i.e. if you looked at
> the code, made suggestions, the submitter acted upon those changes, you
> looked again, etc, shouldn't this be a more appropriate:
> 
> Reviewed-by: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com>
> 
> ?
> 
> I think we need to make these tags reflect more what really happened,
> i.e. if you just glanced over and thought, quickly, that it seems
> okayish, then Acked-by is what we should use, but if you gone thru the
> trouble of actually _looking hard_ at it, sometimes multiple times, then
> we should really use Reviewed-by and not take that lightly.

ah right, I slipped to using ack regardles the effort ;-)
I'll try to kick myself to use reviewed where appropriate

for this one:

Reviewed-by: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com>

thanks,
jirka