From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.remote-ip=192.198.163.10 ARC-Seal: i=1; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc20261015; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; t=1793872130; b=5el+ExmnDIVERs9nxogdVsfHw09vkcrWy6ko5+mUYnAq0/hAQ/WWXHGbs2pXeXpEaD2r bdH7/bXGsYs8fXuWltyhdD/SM4nEHf4Unm7PuboCPQUS0Fq+uKuCdHLl/k7KMGrHp4uUo Pa4jbuGBx71wghhkzmXfWpG1wdVyw+MN4+oFZX/n0Q0CUEjGw9f+3dB3/Y42SS38jN3y+ tW0AwTJHFGPk5TR/Au8XgKYI/TEwm5c1ZHwxUU/0GbxNcfU4Bk45DQAXDil9Ixy6y+trc 88CiI4Eq5+4RE4xQqx4HcLc9ZE1tSgD3pIDE5Al4GzVr4YevHPcVppXnSV0OKRa2tfw== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc20261015; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1793872130; h=DMARC-Filter:DKIM-Signature:X-CSE-ConnectionGUID:X-CSE-MsgGUID: X-IronPort-AV:X-IronPort-AV:Received:X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: X-CSE-MsgGUID:X-ExtLoop1:X-IronPort-AV:Received:Date:From:To:Cc: Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version:Content-Type: Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To:Organization; bh=aaiqo1FgmlnpqaHkZM8EZ00uKzuQ5yFTmLP85DmJftg=; b=xCuwn0M2L5sFxsbciI35HhCMh5r4tvuNfpRDwWCpYYwc/WO+xmjNynXxbnBO7c6Z7bZQ ZlZyfMyFhaex+nJCLf92FUEpFUTIRtuhzXGKM7eYB+f1bitGwVJSvLdUuxYz0UQd4pvMM 1kifE5YqwNRUfa4uNmYUnZoy59+TwZzjNCsHmwQHbkugQGMYcGiOkl84MebHZPnM/Pe1t jx7UVHMz+n8t1E654LuWHTQWJnDl/Llx9Aq09CCXPLJXo6s8WbfgP7lHjlhT8HJIP0R3R U13cq1mU9i2tFWJ2OemgwKzQo1+2V9rFlsm6QTfzXST2OQyVL824UxZP63YE0Ir5ypg== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass header.from=linux.intel.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.intel.com; dkim=pass header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=Intel header.b=J3OqqC95; arc=none smtp.remote-ip=192.198.163.10 Received: from mgamail.intel.com (mgamail.intel.com [192.198.163.10]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-ECDSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9C1E8606A31B; Thu, 5 Nov 2026 09:48:49 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 smtp.subspace.kernel.org 9C1E8606A31B Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.intel.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.intel.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key, unprotected) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=Intel header.b=J3OqqC95 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1793872130; x=1825408130; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references: mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=dqvIovt+HVmdtThi+PrJUWBv6uxwBAn5/UU0lL2eiOI=; b=J3OqqC95yBrLFLJ2e2xnzRDNzCpwPhRkuRgeuJocBnmZkCk9iX/lb9G/ uDeRfanQJaXW7P04+U0eTekaDt1CF4pA+kcQhgkFETUCYSEszLLhSoJUj InoWAg0lqZ4I0uEOdvu5ZaTgB1vmpE7LlbpExBwaWzT3bmfed8ZxaFXxg AWV7A0m8hQXRuipKNjVRiLDcHZoV+q0RDWt4dG2z50gSiHRt8++31zv2H gdbHlDNQdWj/AI4qmbZJ5C8jgkum6Iq2/WWXx7jHdSEatoT9/sRc7kyQE pMO5b35F7RPUc883uOk+T+x3c0ywnMytIvJztXb2jUmY6ZN+MUpgkWcyq A==; X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: rnMogV5/TweJGeQFjuhr6g== X-CSE-MsgGUID: AjJ21k63TNGhwMbBvRQAGg== X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6800,10657,11956"; a="2551409" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.27,197,1787036400"; d="scan'208";a="2551409" Received: from fmviesa010.fm.intel.com ([10.60.135.150]) by fmvoesa104.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 05 Nov 2026 01:48:49 -0800 X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: 2lZit0EfTPWghbmjySRcEA== X-CSE-MsgGUID: rH8B7TMjQsCCJH/PqDz67w== X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.27,197,1787036400"; d="scan'208";a="7528273" Received: from amilburn-desk.amilburn-desk (HELO localhost) ([10.245.244.144]) by smtpauth.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 05 Nov 2026 01:48:47 -0800 Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2026 11:48:45 +0200 From: Andy Shevchenko To: Krzysztof Kozlowski Cc: Jonathan Corbet , Shuah Khan , Randy Dunlap , workflows@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Wolfram Sang Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] docs: submitting-patches: Clarify half-baked review tags Message-ID: References: <20261105082729.19622-2-krzysztof.kozlowski@oss.qualcomm.com> X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: List-Owner: Precedence: list MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - c/o Alberga Business Park, 6 krs, Bertel Jungin Aukio 5, 02600 Espoo On Thu, Nov 05, 2026 at 10:27:17AM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 05/11/2026 10:19, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 05, 2026 at 09:27:30AM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > >> Refactoring of driver subsystems or some core driver parts often come > >> with change of the actual drivers. If that happens within one patch, > >> people giving "Reviewed-by" tag only to piece of the patch, like one > >> driver, and ignoring the rest including the main concept of the patch, > >> are not really reviewing "the patch". > >> > >> As explained in the Submitting Patches document, the "Reviewer's > >> statement of oversight" is for patch as in "entire patch" meaning: > >> > >> (a) I have carried out a technical review of this patch to > >> evaluate its appropriateness and readiness for inclusion into > >> the mainline kernel. > >> > >> The sentence is explicit and complete, meaning it does not allow > >> implicit variations like: "this patch or part of this patch". > >> > >> Reviewing pieces of the patch while ignoring the main part of it, is > >> much closer to Acknowledgment, thus Ack, and "Reviewed-by" credit should > >> not be applicable. > > > > I strongly disagree. It's all explained in the plenty threads you have started > > on the Subject. > > Please provide arguments. You keep responding "No" or "Disagree", yet yo > do not give any technical, discussible data. > > You just wrote: > https://lore.kernel.org/all/auxGom0XR-Hax9b3@ashevche-desk.local/ > > "No, (partial) Rb != Ack." > > to which I provided several quotes backing my point of view: > https://lore.kernel.org/all/00390a20-7630-4066-9779-06c8f915a176@kernel.org/ > > > TL;DR: As a reviewer for the piece in question I have done my part fully. It's > > not my issue that the piece is bundled into a single patch. We have options: ^^^ (1) > > 1) ask to split (and review as standalone piece); > > 2) add (partial) Rb with the pointers of what exactly has been reviewed; > > 3) ignore (silent agreement with the respective subsystem maintainer's opinion); > > 4) ...something I forgot?.. > > > > (even partial) Rb != Ack. > > oh, here you repeat. > > There is no partial review tag. Please read arguments I already provided > to you and either respond with counter arguments or just stop repeating > empty statements. I already provided you the argument, you seems missed it (see 1 ^^^). -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko