From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dan Williams Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/12] libata, libsas: introduce sched_eh and end_eh port ops Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2012 15:49:49 -0700 Message-ID: References: <20120413233343.8025.18101.stgit@dwillia2-linux.jf.intel.com> <20120413233706.8025.56546.stgit@dwillia2-linux.jf.intel.com> <1335115828.13208.31.camel@dabdike.lan> <4F94BF90.4090001@garzik.org> <1335168621.3051.8.camel@dabdike.lan> <1335219777.2749.11.camel@dabdike.lan> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1335219777.2749.11.camel@dabdike.lan> Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org To: James Bottomley Cc: Jeff Garzik , Tejun Heo , linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, Jacek Danecki List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 3:22 PM, James Bottomley wrote: >> No, it means: >> >> "If a person was not directly involved in the preparation or handlin= g of a >> patch but wishes to signify and record their approval of it then the= y can >> arrange to have an Acked-by: line added to the patch's changelog." > > Isn't that tested-by or reviewed-by? Quoting from Documentation/SubmittingPatches was just a tongue in cheek way of pointing out that you have a local/narrower interpretation of Acked-by, and that Jacek's Acked-by is consistent with what's documented. [..] > We're just struggling to understand why it's there. =A0If it's read a= nd > approved the patch, then reviewed-by is the more appropriate. =A0If i= t's > actually booted and ran through a set of unit/QA tests, then it shoul= d > be tested-by. > Ok, reviewed-by is what we'll aim to do for Intel-internal "acks" for isci / libsas going forward. -- Dan -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" i= n the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html