[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <3364571.STeM6x1sE0@agathebauer>
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2017 16:19:11 +0200
From: Milian Wolff <milian.wolff@...b.com>
To: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>
Cc: Ravi Bangoria <ravi.bangoria@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Mark Wielaard <mark@...mp.org>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
"Naveen N. Rao" <naveen.n.rao@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] perf: libdw support for powerpc [ping]
On Mittwoch, 21. Juni 2017 14:48:29 CEST Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> Em Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 10:16:56AM +0200, Milian Wolff escreveu:
> > On Mittwoch, 21. Juni 2017 03:07:39 CEST Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> > > Hi Millian, can I take this as an Acked-by or Tested-by?
> >
> > I have no access to any PowerPC hardware. In principle the code looks
> > fine, but that's all I can say here.
>
> Ok, that would count as an Acked-by, i.e. from
> Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst:
>
> -------------------------
>
> 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: (but note that it is usually better to ask for an
> explicit ack).
>
> -------------------------
>
> If you had a ppc machine _and_ had applied and tested the patch, that
> would allow us to use a Tested-by tag.
I see, I'm still unfamiliar with this process. But yes, do consider it an
`Acked-by` from my side then.
Cheers
--
Milian Wolff | milian.wolff@...b.com | Senior Software Engineer
KDAB (Deutschland) GmbH&Co KG, a KDAB Group company
Tel: +49-30-521325470
KDAB - The Qt Experts
Powered by blists - more mailing lists