From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from tx2ehsobe004.messaging.microsoft.com ([65.55.88.14] helo=tx2outboundpool.messaging.microsoft.com) by merlin.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.76 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1SOw9x-0004By-ME for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Mon, 30 Apr 2012 19:21:23 +0000 Message-ID: <4F9EE627.5080003@freescale.com> Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2012 14:21:11 -0500 From: Scott Wood MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Brian Norris Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 01/10] mtd: nand: add 'oob_required' argument to NAND {read,write}_page interfaces References: <1335576594-25267-1-git-send-email-computersforpeace@gmail.com> <1335576594-25267-2-git-send-email-computersforpeace@gmail.com> <20120429143631.532ce0a6@pixies.home.jungo.com> <1335705942.1942.10.camel@koala> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Mike Dunn , Prabhakar Kushwaha , Artem Bityutskiy , Lei Wen , Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD , Kevin Cernekee , Wolfram Sang , Matthieu CASTET , Huang Shijie , linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, Shmulik Ladkani , Florian Fainelli , Jamie Iles , Thomas Gleixner , Li Yang , David Woodhouse , Axel Lin , Bastian Hecht List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On 04/30/2012 02:16 PM, Brian Norris wrote: > On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 6:25 AM, Artem Bityutskiy wrote: >> On Sun, 2012-04-29 at 14:36 +0300, Shmulik Ladkani wrote: >>>> Note: I couldn't compile-test all of these easily, as some had ARCH >>>> dependencies. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Brian Norris >>> >>> Reviewed-by: Shmulik Ladkani >> >> Brian, probably you take care of this, but just in case I would like to >> ask to put tags like this to your patches when re-sending. I am trying >> to be careful about this for several reasons: it shows that the patch >> was reviewed, it saves the reviewers name in the git history which and >> makes persons' contribution visible, so it is kind of a credit. > > Sure, I'll do this as appropriate. Should I apply these tags when the > review is made w/o an explicit "Reviewed-by" (e.g., Scott Wood's > comments on patch 7)? There's also the issue of placing "reviewed-by" > before the reviewer actually sees my change. You can put mine on if you want in this case, provided the write-side change is removed as discussed -- but in general, I'd say that making a comment on one part of a patch doesn't indicate that the whole thing has been reviewed. -Scott