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

[Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@xenotime.net>]

On Tue, 12 Jul 2011 20:35:12 -0400 Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:

> On Mon, 11 Jul 2011 08:55:19 +0300, Pekka Enberg said:
> 
> > The definitions in SubmittingPatches are not hard rules and are, in
> > fact, out of date. See Documentation/development-process/5.Posting for
> > alternative definitions:
> > 
> >  - Acked-by: indicates an agreement by another developer (often a
> >    maintainer of the relevant code) that the patch is appropriate for
> >    inclusion into the kernel.
> > 
> > and
> > 
> >  - Reviewed-by: the named developer has reviewed the patch for correctness;
> >    see the reviewer's statement in Documentation/SubmittingPatches for more
> >    detail.
> 
> Unfortunately, SubmittingPatches says:
> 
>         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.
> 
> and often, I'm only comfortable stating (b) - often, I'd like to *disavow* both
> (a) and (c)(1) - I usually *don't* do a tech review, and may have no opinion as
> to whether it's "cooked" enough to be included.  Also, usually, the only "known
> issue" from (c)(2) is the one thing I commented on for part (b)...
> 
> Comments-Addressed-Acked: anybody? :)

then you just want to use Acked-by instead of Reviewed-by.  I think.


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