From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail.tipi-net.de (mail.tipi-net.de [194.13.80.246]) (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 4A34738E5F6; Mon, 6 Apr 2026 18:37:31 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=194.13.80.246 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1775500653; cv=none; b=DE1AaXlDxojc0/61yPB4NNpz0/MZ6aBfgCSZJmNCCFh/R0zTFH234TOA2a0zfHoJhtkQIjHHsCbfms7LgCOS3Bhc22qeQ+RJOvsD23T3LMj2LLLVpLsBYJ/ekIeIcd5SW+A4wvFd5nCbQbPrxttdDVtTih6OLtS+9LdqfmUwrS4= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1775500653; c=relaxed/simple; bh=j/OcC1PBra97L2e12u5xT99c37IGn8k7+8n/kXD/Ng4=; h=MIME-Version:Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References: Message-ID:Content-Type; b=P0+of/ddnYkoxVsKW29KzpO/yG1MnFyqDAgzpnNkY2Np7+liMldFffZ2tJIjEbmbmvTXQa2981voPMOb5C0/IYj52d2ajURQ2b2pgsGq66AJXveemjp/UC1NcDJaZSEm6+bbJpjvksGrz+2NO3PymnlPta5ZCOxJmcbkwDw4aeo= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=tipi-net.de; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=tipi-net.de; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=tipi-net.de header.i=@tipi-net.de header.b=LJbR9dh4; arc=none smtp.client-ip=194.13.80.246 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=tipi-net.de Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=tipi-net.de Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=tipi-net.de header.i=@tipi-net.de header.b="LJbR9dh4" Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Mailerdaemon) with ESMTPSA id C9251A5888; Mon, 6 Apr 2026 20:37:27 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tipi-net.de; s=dkim; t=1775500648; h=from:subject:date:message-id:to:cc:mime-version:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:references; bh=kff7k9sb1vSdk8ThNR1w5zwCc9/cSFpnvvMQ/mvFjKk=; b=LJbR9dh48Z28a7oODi05q5LCn0xvjV5bB1c6ERpYX9n35JsfdDJfSJk/4TELdcnu4VEycF uEWo0GmcIFxAkKGksNk+GX88jGceHzi22qrRnIZUeZRr4jKlRjv+b2maiyRvebbhDqHt2F F5Dn5pszA1Vy1qttnNgMlxZIFxGyzTx1FUv4isAfogspYLALaxO5/mIGty4SJPPjOtgYuk Zi//dWqmAGTWwJ936oLzf/ne6+fMbCH2xOfJNNstClp5uAzjTGfOxVtmEbHsRdoV6YjI7e 12e4evHsIEK3ugFY8dBNB2PW5SEL1oNTQnoCKa/DYNembxt6pGu2/DGTqmeZ7Q== Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Mon, 06 Apr 2026 20:37:27 +0200 From: Nicolai Buchwitz To: Jakub Kicinski Cc: davem@davemloft.net, netdev@vger.kernel.org, edumazet@google.com, pabeni@redhat.com, andrew+netdev@lunn.ch, horms@kernel.org, corbet@lwn.net, skhan@linuxfoundation.org, workflows@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] docs: netdev: improve wording of reviewer guidance In-Reply-To: <20260406175334.3153451-1-kuba@kernel.org> References: <20260406175334.3153451-1-kuba@kernel.org> Message-ID: <04de66f8f3d92720fcae6280b70f57f9@tipi-net.de> X-Sender: nb@tipi-net.de Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Last-TLS-Session-Version: TLSv1.3 On 6.4.2026 19:53, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > Reword the reviewer guidance based on behavior we see on the list. > Steer folks: > - towards sending tags > - away from process issues. > > Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski > --- > CC: corbet@lwn.net > CC: skhan@linuxfoundation.org > CC: workflows@vger.kernel.org > CC: linux-doc@vger.kernel.org > --- > Documentation/process/maintainer-netdev.rst | 8 +++++--- > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/Documentation/process/maintainer-netdev.rst > b/Documentation/process/maintainer-netdev.rst > index 3aa13bc2405d..bda93b459a05 100644 > --- a/Documentation/process/maintainer-netdev.rst > +++ b/Documentation/process/maintainer-netdev.rst > @@ -551,10 +551,12 @@ helpful tips please see > :ref:`development_advancedtopics_reviews`. > > It's safe to assume that netdev maintainers know the community and the > level > of expertise of the reviewers. The reviewers should not be concerned > about > -their comments impeding or derailing the patch flow. > +their comments impeding or derailing the patch flow. A Reviewed-by tag > +is understood to mean "I have reviewed this code to the best of my > ability" > +rather than "I can attest this code is correct". > I had the same hesitation when starting to review on netdev, unsure if my R-b carried any value. Therefore I appreciate the addition. > -Less experienced reviewers are highly encouraged to do more in-depth > -review of submissions and not focus exclusively on trivial or > subjective > +Reviewers are highly encouraged to do more in-depth review of > submissions > +and not focus exclusively on process issues, trivial or subjective > matters like code formatting, tags etc. > > Testimonials / feedback Reviewed-by: Nicolai Buchwitz