Re: [PATCH v2] docs: submitting-patches: Clarify half-baked review tags

[Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@oss.qualcomm.com>]

On 05/11/2026 10:48, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 05, 2026 at 10:27:17AM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 05/11/2026 10:19, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>>> On Thu, Nov 05, 2026 at 09:27:30AM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>> Refactoring of driver subsystems or some core driver parts often come
>>>> with change of the actual drivers.  If that happens within one patch,
>>>> people giving "Reviewed-by" tag only to piece of the patch, like one
>>>> driver, and ignoring the rest including the main concept of the patch,
>>>> are not really reviewing "the patch".
>>>>
>>>> As explained in the Submitting Patches document, the "Reviewer's
>>>> statement of oversight" is for patch as in "entire patch" meaning:
>>>>
>>>>   (a) I have carried out a technical review of this patch to
>>>>       evaluate its appropriateness and readiness for inclusion into
>>>>       the mainline kernel.
>>>>
>>>> The sentence is explicit and complete, meaning it does not allow
>>>> implicit variations like: "this patch or part of this patch".
>>>>
>>>> Reviewing pieces of the patch while ignoring the main part of it, is
>>>> much closer to Acknowledgment, thus Ack, and "Reviewed-by" credit should
>>>> not be applicable.
>>>
>>> I strongly disagree. It's all explained in the plenty threads you have started
>>> on the Subject.
>>
>> Please provide arguments. You keep responding "No" or "Disagree", yet yo
>> do not give any technical, discussible data.
>>
>> You just wrote:
>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/auxGom0XR-Hax9b3@ashevche-desk.local/
>>
>> "No, (partial) Rb != Ack."
>>
>> to which I provided several quotes backing my point of view:
>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/00390a20-7630-4066-9779-06c8f915a176@kernel.org/
>>
>>> TL;DR: As a reviewer for the piece in question I have done my part fully. It's
>>> not my issue that the piece is bundled into a single patch. We have options:
> 
> ^^^ (1)
> 
>>> 1) ask to split (and review as standalone piece);
>>> 2) add (partial) Rb with the pointers of what exactly has been reviewed;
>>> 3) ignore (silent agreement with the respective subsystem maintainer's opinion);
>>> 4) ...something I forgot?..
>>>
>>> (even partial) Rb != Ack.
>>
>> oh, here you repeat.
>>
>> There is no partial review tag. Please read arguments I already provided
>> to you and either respond with counter arguments or just stop repeating
>> empty statements.
> 
> I already provided you the argument, you seems missed it (see 1 ^^^).

The (1) above does not address that statement of oversight does not
include possibility of partial review.

Best regards,
Krzysztof