From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756816Ab1GJXH3 (ORCPT ); Sun, 10 Jul 2011 19:07:29 -0400 Received: from oproxy4-pub.bluehost.com ([69.89.21.11]:49687 "HELO oproxy4-pub.bluehost.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1756760Ab1GJXHZ convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Sun, 10 Jul 2011 19:07:25 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=default; d=xenotime.net; h=Received:Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-Id:In-Reply-To:References:Organization:X-Mailer:Mime-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-Identified-User; b=IlD5b3T2wbGRryN4G5n894LB/zCmZ+ndQ6jIITD2/LDEjMWr8WJx6wF/5F5TDyBAsD2Q/93VwcsI4hmXqmDFPaiXvslzCCzc4KB7FsioCjDS83CQV5HT120M9SKhUDBV; Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2011 16:07:22 -0700 From: Randy Dunlap To: Jesper Juhl Cc: Arnaud Lacombe , Pekka Enberg , =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Am=E9rico?= Wang , Raghavendra D Prabhu , linux-kbuild@vger.kernel.org, Nir Tzachar , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Avoid Wunused-but-set warning Message-Id: <20110710160722.ae763029.rdunlap@xenotime.net> In-Reply-To: References: <20110710110241.7650e03f.rdunlap@xenotime.net> Organization: YPO4 X-Mailer: Sylpheed 2.7.1 (GTK+ 2.16.6; x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT X-Identified-User: {1807:box742.bluehost.com:xenotime:xenotime.net} {sentby:smtp auth 50.53.38.135 authed with rdunlap@xenotime.net} Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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 wrote: > > > > On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 7:24 PM, Arnaud Lacombe wrote: > > > >> Hi, > > > >> > > > >> On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 12:16 PM, Américo Wang wrote: > > > >>> On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 12:24 AM, Raghavendra D Prabhu > > > >>> 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 > > > >>> > > > >>> Acked-by: WANG Cong > > > >>> > > > >> 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 ***