From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758091Ab1GKRLi (ORCPT ); Mon, 11 Jul 2011 13:11:38 -0400 Received: from oproxy6-pub.bluehost.com ([67.222.54.6]:41108 "HELO oproxy6-pub.bluehost.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1757979Ab1GKRLh (ORCPT ); Mon, 11 Jul 2011 13:11:37 -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=Du4FZPW5YCnDkfnLOnFehtgu+ieF0U3U9EmKhqm1+e5OXxZy4oDDninvMjLyq5+9M1QAFvuaM1No38uw68e5FfQLeLMc0iVuSC7ujkp61hrKEVwdyUCC0WAcIjl/K7vO; Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 10:11:34 -0700 From: Randy Dunlap To: Mark Brown Cc: Jesper Juhl , Arnaud Lacombe , Pekka Enberg , Am?rico 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: <20110711101134.613d88ee.rdunlap@xenotime.net> In-Reply-To: <20110711050951.GA22699@sirena.org.uk> References: <20110710110241.7650e03f.rdunlap@xenotime.net> <20110710160722.ae763029.rdunlap@xenotime.net> <20110710165333.8c7f9620.rdunlap@xenotime.net> <20110711050951.GA22699@sirena.org.uk> 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=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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 06:09:52 +0100 Mark Brown wrote: > On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 04:53:33PM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote: > > > But do as you like. Which parts of SubmittingPatches do you think > > support your interpretation? > > > and should we have this line: > > Acked-by: is not as formal as Signed-off-by:. > > changed to: > > Acked-by: is not as formal as Signed-off-by: or Reviewed-by:. > > e.g.? > > Current practice seems to be that Acked-by is used instead of > Reviewed-by - the latter is comparatively rare. ISTM that more education and encouragement are needed about Reviewed-by:. (Patch Review is a possible kernel summit topic.) and that SubmittingPatches should be updated since we generally refer people to that file and not to Documentation/development-process/ Samples from my partial mailing list archives: linux-pci mailing list: Acked-by: 93 Reviewed-by: 81 linux-mm mailing list: Acked-by: 2104 Reviewed-by: 1344 netdev mailing list: Acked-by: 1366 Reviewed-by: 659 --- ~Randy *** Remember to use Documentation/SubmitChecklist when testing your code ***