linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] eventfs: Fix kerneldoc of eventfs_remove

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20231101160035.12824b55@gandalf.local.home>
Date:   Wed, 1 Nov 2023 16:00:35 -0400
From:   Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To:     Mukesh Ojha <quic_mojha@...cinc.com>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Trace Kernel <linux-trace-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] eventfs: Fix kerneldoc of eventfs_remove_rec()

On Mon, 30 Oct 2023 21:57:13 +0530
Mukesh Ojha <quic_mojha@...cinc.com> wrote:

> On 10/30/2023 9:45 PM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > From: "Steven Rostedt (Google)" <rostedt@...dmis.org>
> > 
> > The eventfs_remove_rec() had some missing parameters in the kerneldoc
> > comment above it. Also, rephrase the description a bit more to have a bit
> > more correct grammar.
> > 
> > Fixes: 5790b1fb3d672 ("eventfs: Remove eventfs_file and just use eventfs_inode");
> > Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@...el.com>
> > Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/oe-kbuild-all/202310052216.4SgqasWo-lkp@intel.com/
> > Signed-off-by: Steven Rostedt (Google) <rostedt@...dmis.org>  
> 
> Reviewed-by: Mukesh Ojha <quic_mojha@...cinc.com>

Hi Mukesh!

First, I want to thank you for your reviews. We certainly need more
reviewers.

But I need to also state that "Reviewed-by" tags should not be sent so
lightly. The only times a Reviewed-by tag should be sent is if you
participated in the discussion of the code, you have authored some of
the code that is being modified, or are marked as a reviewer of the code in
the MAINTAINERS file.

For example, you added to the discussion here:

   https://lore.kernel.org/all/65dcdd9c-a75b-4fe7-bdcf-471a5602db20@linaro.org/

And adding your Reviewed-by tag is appropriate.

But when a maintainer receives a Reviewed-by from someone they don't know,
without any discussion in the patch, it may make that maintainer think that
the person sending the Reviewed-by is only out to get listed in the LWN
"Reviewed-by" count.

I review other developers' code all the time, and unless the code touches
something I worked on or I'm marked as a reviewer in the MAINTAINERS file,
I do not send a Reviewed-by tag unless I added some input to the patch in
question.

My advice to you is to keep up the reviewing, I appreciate it (I really
do!), but don't send out Reviewed-by tags unless you are marked as a
reviewer of the code, or participated in a discussion on that code.

Thanks,

-- Steve