linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 4/7] dt-bindings: iio: accel: adxl345: Add spi-3wire

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]

Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2024 21:17:11 +0100
From: Lothar Rubusch <l.rubusch@...il.com>
To: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
Cc: lars@...afoo.de, Michael.Hennerich@...log.com, jic23@...nel.org, 
	robh+dt@...nel.org, krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org, conor+dt@...nel.org, 
	linux-iio@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, eraretuya@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 4/7] dt-bindings: iio: accel: adxl345: Add spi-3wire

On Tue, Mar 26, 2024 at 7:30 AM Krzysztof Kozlowski
<krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org> wrote:
>
> On 25/03/2024 23:09, Lothar Rubusch wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>>> the tags. The upstream maintainer will do that for tags received on the
> >>>> version they apply.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> I'm pretty sure we will still see further iterations. So, I apply the
> >>> tags in the next version, already scheduled. Ok?
> >>>
> >>>> https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.5-rc3/source/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst#L577
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Going over the books I feel it does not make sense to still mention
> >>> feedback ("Reveiewed-by") for the v1 or v2 of the patch here in a v5,
> >>> does it? Your link mentiones "However if the patch has changed
> >>
> >> I don't understand. When did you receive the tag? v3, right? So what do
> >> you mean by v1 and v2?
> >>
> >
> > V1: The first version of the 3wire patch. I have split the single
> > patch upon some feedback (yours?!) - V2... So, my current
> > interpretation is, that every feedback I need to mention as
> > Reviewed-by tag, no?
>
> What? Feedback is not review. It's clearly explained in submitting
> patches. Please read it.
>

Exactly. My missunderstanding here is this:  Why did you send me a
reminder that I forgot to add "Reviewed-by" tag in your last mail?
Could you please clarify your last mail? You wrote:
"(...)
This is a friendly reminder during the review process.

It looks like you received a tag and forgot to add it.

If you do not know the process, here is a short explanation:
Please add Acked-by/Reviewed-by/Tested-by tags when posting new
versions, (...)"

AFAIK noone literally had told me: "please add a Reviewed-by me tag",
or did I miss something? I'm a bit lost here, sorry.

> Best regards,
> Krzysztof
>