[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <225785.1685055132@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
Date: Thu, 25 May 2023 23:52:12 +0100
From: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
To: Kenny Ho <y2kenny@...il.com>
Cc: dhowells@...hat.com, Kenny Ho <Kenny.Ho@....com>,
David Laight <David.Laight@...lab.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
Marc Dionne <marc.dionne@...istor.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
"linux-afs@...ts.infradead.org" <linux-afs@...ts.infradead.org>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
alexander.deucher@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Truncate UTS_RELEASE for rxrpc version
Kenny Ho <y2kenny@...il.com> wrote:
> This makes sense and looks fine to me. I don't know the proper
> etiquette here, but
> Acked-by: Kenny Ho <Kenny.Ho@....com>
If I'm not going to pick the patch up, I tend to use Acked-by when reviewing a
patch that touches code I'm a listed maintainer for and Reviewed-by when it's
code that I'm not a maintainer for... but the descriptions in:
Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst
seem to leave a lot of overlap.
David
Powered by blists - more mailing lists