[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20110712175552.965870c3.rdunlap@xenotime.net>
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 17:55:52 -0700
From: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...otime.net>
To: Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu
Cc: Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>, Jesper Juhl <jj@...osbits.net>,
Arnaud Lacombe <lacombar@...il.com>,
Américo 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 Tue, 12 Jul 2011 20:35:12 -0400 Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Jul 2011 08:55:19 +0300, Pekka Enberg said:
>
> > The definitions in SubmittingPatches are not hard rules and are, in
> > fact, out of date. See Documentation/development-process/5.Posting for
> > alternative definitions:
> >
> > - Acked-by: indicates an agreement by another developer (often a
> > maintainer of the relevant code) that the patch is appropriate for
> > inclusion into the kernel.
> >
> > and
> >
> > - Reviewed-by: the named developer has reviewed the patch for correctness;
> > see the reviewer's statement in Documentation/SubmittingPatches for more
> > detail.
>
> Unfortunately, SubmittingPatches says:
>
> 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.
>
> and often, I'm only comfortable stating (b) - often, I'd like to *disavow* both
> (a) and (c)(1) - I usually *don't* do a tech review, and may have no opinion as
> to whether it's "cooked" enough to be included. Also, usually, the only "known
> issue" from (c)(2) is the one thing I commented on for part (b)...
>
> Comments-Addressed-Acked: anybody? :)
then you just want to use Acked-by instead of Reviewed-by. I think.
---
~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