From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: George Dunlap Subject: Re: AMD/IOMMU: revert "SR56x0 Erratum 64 - Reset all head & tail pointers" Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2013 10:56:59 +0100 Message-ID: <51ADB9EB.9070802@eu.citrix.com> References: <51AC5DED02000078000DA6F4@nat28.tlf.novell.com> <51AC6540.9070101@citrix.com> <51ADB3C0.8050608@citrix.com> <51ADB5AD.9030704@eu.citrix.com> <1370339594.24512.98.camel@zakaz.uk.xensource.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1370339594.24512.98.camel@zakaz.uk.xensource.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Ian Campbell Cc: Andrew Cooper , Jan Beulich , "suravee.suthikulpanit@amd.com" , xen-devel List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 06/04/2013 10:53 AM, Ian Campbell wrote: > On Tue, 2013-06-04 at 10:38 +0100, George Dunlap wrote: >> In this context, I would read "Acked-by" as "I agree that this should go >> in", or at very least, "I am happy for this to go in"; whereas to me >> "Reviewed-by" to me sounds like, "I took a close look at the code and >> didn't see anything wrong, but otherwise have no opinion on the matter." > > I think we decided (somewhat informally I think) that we interpreted > Foo-by according to Linux's Documentation/SubmittingPatches: > > If a person was not directly involved in the preparation or handling of a > patch but wishes to signify and record their approval of it then they can > arrange to have an Acked-by: line added to the patch's changelog. > > Acked-by: is often used by the maintainer of the affected code when that > maintainer neither contributed to nor forwarded the patch. > > Acked-by: is not as formal as Signed-off-by:. It is a record that the acker > has at least reviewed the patch and has indicated acceptance. Hence patch > mergers will sometimes manually convert an acker's "yep, looks good to me" > into an Acked-by:. > > 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 > the part which affects that maintainer's code. Judgement should be used here. > When in doubt people should refer to the original discussion in the mailing > list archives. > > [...] > > Reviewed-by is somehow more formal: > > Reviewed-by:, instead, indicates that the patch has been reviewed and found > acceptable according to the Reviewer's Statement: > > Reviewer's statement of oversight > > By offering my Reviewed-by: tag, I state that: > > (a) I have carried out a technical review of this patch to > evaluate its appropriateness and readiness for inclusion into > the mainline kernel. > > (b) Any problems, concerns, or questions relating to the patch > have been communicated back to the submitter. I am satisfied > with the submitter's response to my comments. > > (c) While there may be things that could be improved with this > submission, I believe that it is, at this time, (1) a > worthwhile modification to the kernel, and (2) free of known > issues which would argue against its inclusion. > > (d) While I have reviewed the patch and believe it to be sound, I > do not (unless explicitly stated elsewhere) make any > warranties or guarantees that it will achieve its stated > purpose or function properly in any given situation. > > A Reviewed-by tag is a statement of opinion that the patch is an > appropriate modification of the kernel without any remaining serious > technical issues. Any interested reviewer (who has done the work) can > offer a Reviewed-by tag for a patch. This tag serves to give credit to > reviewers and to inform maintainers of the degree of review which has been > done on the patch. Reviewed-by: tags, when supplied by reviewers known to > understand the subject area and to perform thorough reviews, will normally > increase the likelihood of your patch getting into the kernel. > > Acked-by is supposedly something which is offered by the maintainer of > the relevant code to indicate they are happy for it to go in. In the > Linux world that might be via a different maintainer's tree (for cross > subsystem stuff) or be an indication from e.g. a driver maintainer to > the subsystem maintainer that the patch can be applied. In the Xen world > I think we interpret an Ack from someone in MAINTAINERS as a signal to > the committers that the patch should be committed. I stand corrected. -G