From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758749AbXJKVK6 (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Oct 2007 17:10:58 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755607AbXJKVKv (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Oct 2007 17:10:51 -0400 Received: from agminet01.oracle.com ([141.146.126.228]:24760 "EHLO agminet01.oracle.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755599AbXJKVKu (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Oct 2007 17:10:50 -0400 Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2007 14:07:40 -0700 From: Randy Dunlap To: Trond Myklebust Cc: Jonathan Corbet , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Documentation/patch-tags v3 Message-Id: <20071011140740.8cce9970.randy.dunlap@oracle.com> In-Reply-To: <1192135811.7899.25.camel@heimdal.trondhjem.org> References: <30616.1192133818@lwn.net> <1192135811.7899.25.camel@heimdal.trondhjem.org> Organization: Oracle Linux Eng. X-Mailer: Sylpheed 2.4.6 (GTK+ 2.8.10; x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAQAAAAI= X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAQAAAAI= X-Whitelist: TRUE X-Whitelist: TRUE Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 16:50:11 -0400 Trond Myklebust wrote: > > On Thu, 2007-10-11 at 14:16 -0600, Jonathan Corbet wrote: > > +---- > > + > > +Reviewer's statement of oversight > > + > > +By offering my Reviewed-by: tag, I state that: > > + > > + (a) I have carried out a technical review of this patch to evaluate its > > + appropriateness and readiness for inclusion into the mainline kernel. > > + > > + (b) Any problems, concerns, or questions relating to the patch have been > > + communicated back to the submitter. I am satisfied with the > > + submitter's response to my comments. > > + > > + (c) While there may be things that could be improved with this submission, > > + I believe that it is, at this time, (1) a worthwhile modification to > > + the kernel, and (2) free of known issues which would argue against its > > + inclusion. > > + > > + (d) While I have reviewed the patch and believe it to be sound, I do not > > + (unless explicitly stated elsewhere) make any warranties or guarantees > > + that it will achieve its stated purpose or function properly in any > > + given situation. > > I'm confused about how to reconcile (c) and (d) here. If you are not > sure about whether or not the patch will achieve its stated purpose, why > would you be arguing that it is a worthwhile modification? Well, any non-trivial patch could have a lurking bug in it, even if most code paths are tested. I thought that I once saw (read) something like this: Someone who gives a Reviewed-by: tag also is willing to take ownership (or at least help debug) any problems that arise from the patch, including but not limited to patch-author hit-by-bus conditions. Did I dream that? --- ~Randy