Re: [PATCH v2] docs: submitting-patches: Clarify half-baked review tags

[Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@oss.qualcomm.com>]

On 05/11/2026 09:50, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> 
>> +If the reviewer checks only a piece of the patch, leaving the rest unreviewed,
>> +then more appropriate is Acked-by tag or adding a "# subpart-name" marker
> 
> "... is an Acked-by ..."?

ack

> 
>> +after the Reviewed-by tag:
>> +
>> +	Reviewed-by: I Did Not Read Everything <foo@example.org> # bar, baz
> 
> How about being more specific?
> 
>  +	Reviewed-by: Driver X author <foo@example.org> # for Driver X
> 

ack

> TBH, I think the above is even better than a generic "Acked-by" which is
> basically "Yeah, I didn't look in detail but the general approach looks
> fine". Which is not what the above says. The above says: "I didn't check
> the general approach, but assuming it is okay, the changes to my driver
> are correct". If I get a couple of those, then I know which parts have
> been reviewed and which have not. A list of generic Acked-bys will not
> provide that information. So, actually, I think even the Acked-by should
> have the "# subpart name" once only a part of the patch has been looked
> at. Ack/Rev is then describing the thoroughness of that look.
> 
> Do you get what I mean?

Yes. Part of the Acked-by tag is actually unspecified Acknowledgment and
many maintainers do not trail it with "# subpart" name. It's well
accepted and known in our community that Acked-by can be for everything
or for Maintainer's responsible area, implied by MAINTAINERS file.

Reviewed-by even with the "# subpart" still appears in person's credits
and reviewing entire patch of 700 lines of diff code (like Frank's SPI
patch) is not the same as 10 diff codes for one driver.

I'll send later v3 with the changes from above.

Best regards,
Krzysztof