[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAOJsxLGfsdirEudJ=N9M0aTTqwN65UKcpQygin15ztHWR0qZdw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2011 15:16:46 +0300
From: Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>
To: Arnaud Lacombe <lacombar@...il.com>
Cc: Américo Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>,
Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...otime.net>,
Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>,
Jesper Juhl <jj@...osbits.net>,
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 Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 5:21 AM, Arnaud Lacombe <lacombar@...il.com> wrote:
> I have the feeling from this thread that "Acked-by:" does not need any
> particular qualification, whereas Reviewed-by: "kinda" does. But I may
> have understood that all wrong. Btw, I say "kinda" as I see nothing in
> the Reviewed-by: or Acked-by: definition that require any
> qualification on the involved subsystem to give an Acked-by: or a
> Reviewed-by:. Maybe we [not?] need such some formal requirement.
The formal requirement for 'Reviewed-by' is that you're OK with Linus
and the gang handing your ass to you on a plate when a patch you've
blessed with your tag breaks the world. 'Acked-by' is similar in
nature but the repercussions are less severe.
Pekka
--
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