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=-0.6 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham 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 ADA9BC004D3 for ; Wed, 24 Oct 2018 09:45:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 625AE2082E for ; Wed, 24 Oct 2018 09:45:04 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="DC7WR3UU" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 625AE2082E Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726865AbeJXSM0 (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Oct 2018 14:12:26 -0400 Received: from mail-yw1-f67.google.com ([209.85.161.67]:39766 "EHLO mail-yw1-f67.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726258AbeJXSM0 (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Oct 2018 14:12:26 -0400 Received: by mail-yw1-f67.google.com with SMTP id v1-v6so1797187ywv.6; Wed, 24 Oct 2018 02:45:01 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=y2imPrQBCleSfuoYb57UDpMgu4SBmSZqDInqIhK1wD8=; b=DC7WR3UUhYcwtC2hflCwUMcGVakio78s15rq22jDRcSuQiTWwMquQwTGS/iFzas+7+ TU943tO2UzMK8UYGfhWtVAMO/owhGptoj2Q1bfYOOKykFB7c8Y/2updCKZjynJUokXZh pZWTrmd8KIyx4vzI73tkhE7sdfBg8Qe7nay+QEeDeX4tygdPh525+XXEjrMEuCxDDXuN 3JUlA7HQ703tsFYAQFYzZZeTbAxTZMfnj+a0achkOPbIWasAiOZuVLHt8eBtM/857cyn VpLxfn/9YcaoQHqFfeedFFXettEsZHT9O14/uh3JC5eJU5fFPKnZ6a0wgMO+cuzW7KwW EWuw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=y2imPrQBCleSfuoYb57UDpMgu4SBmSZqDInqIhK1wD8=; b=IiXFOKYBbGNYncBo2NoQcWNtNboxjD6dpA1N3roFuEE942HnqG5kJfORBQPE8eVJ7P +PAlgjv2ibD7OW6MjAJizKRsVWZrurSwKM1LKZhwaOrWAoROt4elFI25+po8heyHh3ZM e/tPJEfWulQkE3/2Xzd58x9cB0eLTzIiyFK9mA0D6e2RLFinosI2a/lUWOGu+p30tCH3 Mp7quo+CgXepBRdNpl593cnkc/1SU7AJM7Y1HEYjTbm90TjglnNW0BZWWwUQzLyafCRc hT1AgDnXmnsgPwPBXuh/tMZfDC4YzBs4jLcKksSY4phn6DuR+m/GtDZP1RvfaS9uGlBy o6ug== X-Gm-Message-State: AGRZ1gL2RWWA1m7HumrXgkRzCFsz176F3P3GQvshrCry/2tdWd77yYiR cFb5B+jj3jhOrvURowemrrPnrYb2weqWD5Pc4Ow= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AJdET5fe8UyEC7PnlBa86AcY/nTwc9A1I1xDPidiEpyJoM4L3GV8YUOKlbUlP29aZEFvOF5NQWu9NgqaAa1P6X+qbHs= X-Received: by 2002:a0d:d181:: with SMTP id t123-v6mr1408902ywd.241.1540374301186; Wed, 24 Oct 2018 02:45:01 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20181023201953.GA15687@pathfinder> <20181024082134.GA14565@pathfinder> <20181024093103.GA19623@pathfinder> In-Reply-To: <20181024093103.GA19623@pathfinder> From: Amir Goldstein Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2018 12:44:50 +0300 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH v3 01/10] fs: common implementation of file type To: Phillip Potter Cc: Al Viro , linux-kernel , linux-fsdevel Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 12:31 PM Phillip Potter wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 12:20:14PM +0300, Amir Goldstein wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 11:21 AM Phillip Potter wrote: > > > Dear Amir, > > > > > > Yes, I applied each patch manually to my tree, fixed it up where needed, > > > then after rebuilding and testing each one I committed it and regenerated > > > each patch. Thank you very much for your advice, I will take it into > > > account and make the necessary changes. In the meantime, do I add other > > > tags in the order they are received also (such as Reviewed-by:) and am > > > I safe to add these in when I re-send the patches with the changes you > > > and others have suggested (or would that offend people that have > > > offered the tags)? > > > > > > > Reviewed-by before of after Signed-off-by. > > I prefer Signed-off-by last which conceptually covers the entire patch, > > the commit message including all the review tags that you may have added. > > > > Some developers add Reviewed-by after Signed-off-by signifying the > > order that things happened, so choose your own preference. > > > > As a reviewer, and I speak only for myself, if I offered my Reviewed-by > > I expect it to be removed if a future revision of the patch has changed > > so I have an indication of patches that I need to re-review. > > But if the patch changed very lightly, like small edits to commit message > > and code nits in general, that would not invalidate my review. > > When in doubt, you can always explicitly ask the reviewer. > > > > Thanks, > > Amir. > > Dear Amir, > > Thanks - I am just going to fix up the commit messages as you suggested > using git am etc. The content of the patches themselves will not change > (until further feedback is received). > Well, I did request to change some content (the location and the comment above BUILD_BUG_ON section) which is relevant for several patches. However, so far affected patched did not get any Reviewed-by. Thanks, Amir.