From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from out-189.mta0.migadu.com (out-189.mta0.migadu.com [91.218.175.189]) (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 8AEA61EBFFA for ; Wed, 4 Sep 2024 13:01:16 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=91.218.175.189 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1725454881; cv=none; b=AA6HV9KemEC+XddDjntOepg2Ob/69fb5xcop81bWeYTgr0S4WfwoYsNj4yrs3BkbrfqkWjxZE2iBJKLJOGhKASeOHKFQ8iwwLxpBUDaZYjCFutWkMMCbOVdJSPWyKpaHIkj+HlcFXxSlt4DJsCqC126dxVVzDTP8BjcL7Z/i5mE= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1725454881; c=relaxed/simple; bh=THfeOhwgjXcF0mNvutJQKdFH5L1bHpUmsfmmKI1TpRI=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:Cc:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=XBapwbXrv9yXiJK7WOaPC7qrnFx75h9GA6YhZvdvEHgi7ORRP6bUxAhCkchZ76dXhy58GXMuuyogkl3hstCVg2NHBX2/nkcCAiL2MHxvK2Aj70fGVwOneZpxPtK4BU3d8gbdwcPrMVoStHWflOfnEZotYhhXTULMDWe2gnex3ls= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.dev; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.dev; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linux.dev header.i=@linux.dev header.b=nOZ7pWl8; arc=none smtp.client-ip=91.218.175.189 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.dev Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.dev Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linux.dev header.i=@linux.dev header.b="nOZ7pWl8" Message-ID: DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linux.dev; s=key1; t=1725454873; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=FHAA2dvArprI5opiWit6ae0dZlZrJqDbVtuI6LjabeQ=; b=nOZ7pWl85dSVRHPHV1lQSoD/aHTDiTAFEIljsjVUN2BK/o/+qEDHgPSGWEnwv0+zZo3O7Q JtZmnEOoPFPlGBT8RIm3220aiId9GiOdRljRa1lYrlf2gn2+4kxfTbsiEcbrpFBg/GWWnP 4Fb/oEA2BepMg+up7hkCc2A7o0GGcJ8= Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2024 14:01:06 +0100 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v3] net: enetc: Replace ifdef with IS_ENABLED To: Vladimir Oltean Cc: Martyn Welch , Claudiu Manoil , "David S. Miller" , Eric Dumazet , Jakub Kicinski , Paolo Abeni , kernel@collabora.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <20240904105143.2444106-1-martyn.welch@collabora.com> <20240904111342.2lboi53cl4pav4a5@skbuf> Content-Language: en-US X-Report-Abuse: Please report any abuse attempt to abuse@migadu.com and include these headers. From: Vadim Fedorenko In-Reply-To: <20240904111342.2lboi53cl4pav4a5@skbuf> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Migadu-Flow: FLOW_OUT On 04/09/2024 12:13, Vladimir Oltean wrote: > On Wed, Sep 04, 2024 at 12:11:31PM +0100, Vadim Fedorenko wrote: >> On 04/09/2024 11:51, Martyn Welch wrote: >>> The enetc driver uses ifdefs when checking whether >>> CONFIG_FSL_ENETC_PTP_CLOCK is enabled in a number of places. This works >>> if the driver is compiled in but fails if the driver is available as a >>> kernel module. Replace the instances of ifdef with use of the IS_ENABLED >>> macro, that will evaluate as true when this feature is built as a kernel >>> module and follows the kernel's coding style. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Martyn Welch >>> Reviewed-by: Vadim Fedorenko >> >> If there will be v4, please, put yours SoB as the last tag after all >> other tags. >> >> Thanks, >> Vadim > > What's the deal with this? If I give my review tag now, and the patch > will subsequently be applied, my Reviewed-by: tag will also appear after > his SoB. I think it was discussed several times on the mailing list already, the latest discussion was recently in this thread: https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20240903072417.GN23170@kernel.org/ But I have also seen this suggestion from different maintainers. As you said that if the patch will be applied the tags will go in historical order. In case of re-submission, historically Reviewed-by will be earlier in time line, so should be before SoB, AFAIU. Thanks, Vadim