[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20110711101134.613d88ee.rdunlap@xenotime.net>
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 10:11:34 -0700
From: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...otime.net>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>
Cc: Jesper Juhl <jj@...osbits.net>,
Arnaud Lacombe <lacombar@...il.com>,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
Am?rico Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>,
Raghavendra D Prabhu <rprabhu@...hang.net>,
linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org, Nir Tzachar <nir.tzachar@...il.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Avoid Wunused-but-set warning
On Mon, 11 Jul 2011 06:09:52 +0100 Mark Brown wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 04:53:33PM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote:
>
> > But do as you like. Which parts of SubmittingPatches do you think
> > support your interpretation?
>
> > and should we have this line:
> > Acked-by: is not as formal as Signed-off-by:.
> > changed to:
> > Acked-by: is not as formal as Signed-off-by: or Reviewed-by:.
> > e.g.?
>
> Current practice seems to be that Acked-by is used instead of
> Reviewed-by - the latter is comparatively rare.
ISTM that more education and encouragement are needed about Reviewed-by:.
(Patch Review is a possible kernel summit topic.)
and that SubmittingPatches should be updated since we generally refer people
to that file and not to Documentation/development-process/
Samples from my partial mailing list archives:
linux-pci mailing list: Acked-by: 93 Reviewed-by: 81
linux-mm mailing list: Acked-by: 2104 Reviewed-by: 1344
netdev mailing list: Acked-by: 1366 Reviewed-by: 659
---
~Randy
*** Remember to use Documentation/SubmitChecklist when testing your code ***
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists