From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_MUTT autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B2AA0C04AAF for ; Sat, 18 May 2019 19:54:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9609C20873 for ; Sat, 18 May 2019 19:54:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1729206AbfERTys (ORCPT ); Sat, 18 May 2019 15:54:48 -0400 Received: from outgoing-auth-1.mit.edu ([18.9.28.11]:56015 "EHLO outgoing.mit.edu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1729182AbfERTys (ORCPT ); Sat, 18 May 2019 15:54:48 -0400 Received: from callcc.thunk.org ([66.31.38.53]) (authenticated bits=0) (User authenticated as tytso@ATHENA.MIT.EDU) by outgoing.mit.edu (8.14.7/8.12.4) with ESMTP id x4IJsc9g004184 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Sat, 18 May 2019 15:54:39 -0400 Received: by callcc.thunk.org (Postfix, from userid 15806) id D70C6420027; Sat, 18 May 2019 15:54:24 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 18 May 2019 15:54:24 -0400 From: "Theodore Ts'o" To: Lee Jones Cc: Philippe Mazenauer , Andreas Dilger , "linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH] ext4: Variable to signed to check return code Message-ID: <20190518195424.GC14277@mit.edu> Mail-Followup-To: Theodore Ts'o , Lee Jones , Philippe Mazenauer , Andreas Dilger , "linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" References: <20190517102506.GU4319@dell> <20190517202810.GA21961@mit.edu> <20190518063834.GX4319@dell> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190518063834.GX4319@dell> User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org On Sat, May 18, 2019 at 07:38:34AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote: > "- Acked-by: indicates an agreement by another developer (often a > maintainer of the relevant code) that the patch is appropriate for > inclusion into the kernel." > > And I, as a developer (and not a Maintainer in this case) do indicate > that this patch is appropriate for inclusion into the kernel. > > Reviewed-by has stronger connotations and implies I have in-depth > knowledge of the subsystem/driver AND agree to the Reviewer's > Statement. I use Acked-by in this case as a weaker agreement after a > shallow review of the patch based on its merits alone. Note the "often a maintainer of the relevant code" bit. And "appropriate for inclusion into the kernel" means to me that you've done the same level of review as Reviewed-by. So I have very different understanding of how Acked-by and Reviewed-by than you do. That being said, no offence to you, but any kind of Acked-by or Reviewed-by from you is not going to have as much weight as say, a Reviewed-by: from someone like Jan Kara. That's just because I don't have a good sense to your technical ability, and so I'd be doing a full review myself and not rely on your review at all.... Cheers, - Ted P.S. And if I find a problem in the patch, and someone had attached their Acked-by or Reviewed-by to it, it would have the same negative hit to their reputation either way. Not a big deal if it happens only once, or it's an esepcially tricky issue, but it if happens more than once or is really blatent, I as the maintainer definitely do remember.