From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (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 E2EAA73477; Sun, 12 Jan 2025 17:25:28 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1736702729; cv=none; b=ghnh+Ng9Y8x8epmmR16yAwWVMT2h9KeLTGl77lG5QDVYR2bYxLRB6qN0LBre9HZ0Gh4cJ+QneX96XGdIXVAYZyZm2YK+DVCCM8Tzx8+rrj2DHj9NoAFHzRCrtnPO0X19m4dV/aheFf1g/iUv0c99WgczIPMJRpRXGjhLYN1peJo= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1736702729; c=relaxed/simple; bh=NjQJKmPE9y/RB0vBiPBNLd4m273UABjY8sN5cGArtE0=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=Fe9vFQWriYRDD2SmaP+K8SvWLOobSIRTy0rQEP+7S2IPwHiXLx0EmpmalzbiVidrUi1pqG6UWYCEav0iSUp+koci9GkRPRqHUjQ9Oi/CdS454XQV15S0L8xO2tTg6oDWiUBi27hVhDXQ6wphO5Ct5EJDc9QmKHo1NEbckFp04LY= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linuxfoundation.org header.i=@linuxfoundation.org header.b=bPw2IEaE; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linuxfoundation.org header.i=@linuxfoundation.org header.b="bPw2IEaE" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C1E7CC4CEDF; Sun, 12 Jan 2025 17:25:27 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=linuxfoundation.org; s=korg; t=1736702728; bh=NjQJKmPE9y/RB0vBiPBNLd4m273UABjY8sN5cGArtE0=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=bPw2IEaEGCOBJo2xIcof8RCmMct4j6cmu0GGW0etu8WuqMDw9jSJllPRfg8YwO8+6 yBOC9ZoyxwxFNymsjemzRmsNPVtmk43FtdCNhh6AHxbl/RGpvbsLcEtScXTv2LQu46 EGWD8aHOntIZgO+sxNhxzgtjXsUmOHujypQUWcWg= Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2025 18:25:25 +0100 From: Greg Kroah-Hartman To: Miguel Ojeda Cc: Jonathan Corbet , workflows@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, patches@lists.linux.dev, Neal Gompa , Sami Tolvanen , Masahiro Yamada , Luis Chamberlain , tech-board@groups.linuxfoundation.org, Steven Rostedt , Linus Torvalds , Shuah Khan , Dan Williams Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] docs: submitting-patches: clarify difference between Acked-by and Reviewed-by Message-ID: <2025011219-appetizer-wired-ba35@gregkh> References: <20250112152946.761150-1-ojeda@kernel.org> <20250112152946.761150-3-ojeda@kernel.org> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: workflows@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20250112152946.761150-3-ojeda@kernel.org> On Sun, Jan 12, 2025 at 04:29:45PM +0100, Miguel Ojeda wrote: > Newcomers to the kernel need to learn the different tags that are > used in commit messages and when to apply them. Acked-by is sometimes > misunderstood, since the documentation did not really clarify (up to > the previous commit) when it should be used, especially compared to > Reviewed-by. > > The previous commit already clarified who the usual providers of Acked-by > tags are, with examples. Thus provide a clarification paragraph for > the comparison with Reviewed-by, and give a couple examples reusing the > cases given above, in the previous commit. > > Acked-by: Shuah Khan > Acked-by: Dan Williams > Signed-off-by: Miguel Ojeda > --- > Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst | 6 ++++++ > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst b/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst > index c7a28af235f7..7b0ac7370cb1 100644 > --- a/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst > +++ b/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst > @@ -480,6 +480,12 @@ mergers will sometimes manually convert an acker's "yep, looks good to me" > into an Acked-by: (but note that it is usually better to ask for an > explicit ack). > > +Acked-by: is also less formal than Reviewed-by:. For instance, maintainers may > +use it to signify that they are OK with a patch landing, but they may not have > +reviewed it as thoroughly as if a Reviewed-by: was provided. Similarly, a key > +user may not have carried out a technical review of the patch, yet they may be > +satisfied with the general approach, the feature or the user-facing interface. > + > Acked-by: does not necessarily indicate acknowledgement of the entire patch. > For example, if a patch affects multiple subsystems and has an Acked-by: from > one subsystem maintainer then this usually indicates acknowledgement of just > -- > 2.48.0 > Acked-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman