Re: [PATCH] Avoid Wunused-but-set warning

[Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@xenotime.net>]

On Mon, 11 Jul 2011 00:56:57 +0200 (CEST) Jesper Juhl wrote:

> On Sun, 10 Jul 2011, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> 
> > On Sun, 10 Jul 2011 12:49:20 -0400 Arnaud Lacombe wrote:
> > 
> > > Hi,
> > > 
> > > On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 12:28 PM, Pekka Enberg <penberg@kernel.org> wrote:
> > > > On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 7:24 PM, Arnaud Lacombe <lacombar@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> Hi,
> > > >>
> > > >> On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 12:16 PM, Américo Wang <xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >>> On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 12:24 AM, Raghavendra D Prabhu
> > > >>> <rprabhu@wnohang.net> wrote:
> > > >>>> Hi,
> > > >>>>    I am seeing Wunused-but-set warning while make nconfig.  Looks like
> > > >>>>    active_menu is not used. Removing it fixes the warning.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Signed-off-by: Raghavendra D Prabhu <rprabhu@wnohang.net>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Acked-by: WANG Cong <xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com>
> > > >>>
> > > >> Out of curiosity, what is your status to ACK such patch ?
> > > >
> > > > What kind of status do you need to ACK such a simple patch?
> > > >
> > > As per Documentation/SubmittingPatches:
> > > 
> > > <<
> > > 13) When to use Acked-by: and Cc:
> > > The Signed-off-by: tag indicates that the signer was involved in the
> > > development of the patch, or that he/she was in the patch's delivery path.
> > > 
> > > If a person was not directly involved in the preparation or handling of a
> > > patch but wishes to signify and record their approval of it then they can
> > > arrange to have an Acked-by: line added to the patch's changelog.
> > > 
> > > Acked-by: is often used by the maintainer of the affected code when that
> > > maintainer neither contributed to nor forwarded the patch.
> > > >>
> > > 
> > > That said, it is not a strong requirement... unfortunately. So, let's
> > > have some fun and go ACK thousand of trivial patch just to generate
> > > traffic on the LKML and give myself self-importance :-)
> > 
> > Acked-by: is mostly used as a weak version of Reviewed-by:
> > and the "definition" in SubmittingPatches is not accurate IMO.
> > I.e., it can be used by anyone.
> > 
> 
> Interesting. I was under the impression that Reviewed-by: was a weaker 
> thing than Acked-by: - I certainly have been using it as such.
> 
> I've always interpreted Acked-by: as being something you could apply if 
> you were the author, maintainer or other person with similar strong 
> background knowledge of the code. Where Reviewed-by: could be used by 
> anyone, as long as they had taken the time to read the patch and try and 
> understand what was going on and the result/conclusion looked good.

I don't see it in SubmittingPatches, but there was some discussion at the
time (IIRC!!) that Reviewed-by: indicates that you are willing to support/fix
the patch if the patch author(s) disappear.  I.e., you are willing to take
some ownership responsibility of the patch.

or I could be dreaming...

---
~Randy
*** Remember to use Documentation/SubmitChecklist when testing your code ***