From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756295Ab1GMAz5 (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Jul 2011 20:55:57 -0400 Received: from oproxy6-pub.bluehost.com ([67.222.54.6]:36496 "HELO oproxy6-pub.bluehost.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1753267Ab1GMAzz (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Jul 2011 20:55:55 -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=doxb0tJ6BpqDEh7aiRqhXvlnlad1IcLb0Y1e7T8okTkNqhM8u0rxyHnfiMlYoelemBjyI2DPUmiQhr3bWAucp7/XLgp3Qj/a1BlUXbDaXWNKlXZIVbPD8GnC/w19pTH8; Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 17:55:52 -0700 From: Randy Dunlap To: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu Cc: Pekka Enberg , Jesper Juhl , Arnaud Lacombe , =?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: <20110712175552.965870c3.rdunlap@xenotime.net> In-Reply-To: <32171.1310517312@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> References: <20110710110241.7650e03f.rdunlap@xenotime.net> <20110710160722.ae763029.rdunlap@xenotime.net> <32171.1310517312@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> 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 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 fact, out of date.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 ***