Re: [PATCH v3 0/9] fs/ntfs3: Use new mount api and change some opts

[Konstantin Komarov <almaz.alexandrovich@paragon-software.com>]

On 08.09.2021 12:00, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 7, 2021 at 11:47 PM Kari Argillander
> <kari.argillander@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tuesday, September 7, 2021, Andy Shevchenko
>> (andy.shevchenko@gmail.com) wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, September 7, 2021, Konstantin Komarov <almaz.alexandrovich@paragon-software.com> wrote:
>>>> On 07.09.2021 10:36, Kari Argillander wrote:
> 
> ...
> 
>>>> Yes, everything else seems good.
>>>> We tested patches locally - no regression was
>>>
>>> The formal answer in such case should also contain the Tested-by tag. I would suggest you to read the Submitting Patches document (available in the Linux kernel source tree).
>>
>> He is a maintainer so he can add tags when he picks this up.
> 
> It's a good practice to do so. Moreover, it's better to do it
> patch-by-patch, so tools like `b4` can cope with tags for *anybody*
> who will use it in automated way.
> 
>> This is not
>> really relevant here.
> 
> Why not?
> 
>> Yes it should be good to include that but I have already
>> sended v4 which he has not tested. So I really cannot put this tag for him.
>> So at the end he really should not even put it here.
> 
> For v4 I agree with you.

My answer doesn't contain Tested-by tag because author of patch already said
that there will be next version of patch.
Thanks for Submitting Patches document suggestion.

> 
>> Also usually the maintainers will always make their own tests and usually
>> they will not even bother with a tested-by tag.
> 
> If it's their own code, yes, if it's others', why not? See above as well.
> 
>> Or do you say to me that I
>> should go read Submitting Patches document as I'm the one who submit
>> this?
> 
> It's always good to refresh memory, so why not? :-)
>