[Xen-devel] Is: Reviewed-by, Acked-by rules. Was:Re: [PATCH v7 10/19] x86/VPMU: Make vpmu not HVM-specific

[Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 11:07:14AM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 06.06.14 at 19:40, <boris.ostrovsky@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > vpmu structure will be used for both HVM and PV guests. Move it from
> > hvm_vcpu to arch_vcpu.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Acked-by: Kevin Tian <kevin.tian@xxxxxxxxx>
> 
> I pointed this out on an earlier version of the series, perhaps on
> another patch (but comments like this should be taken to apply
> globally): An ack by a non-maintainer of any of the code being
> modified is bogus/confusing - it should either be Reviewed-by or
> left off.

That is at odds with what the Linux style has:
---
13) When to use Acked-by: and Cc:

The Signed-off-by: tag indicates that the signer was involved in the
development of the patch, or that he/she was in the patch's delivery path.

If a person was not directly involved in the preparation or handling of a
patch but wishes to signify and record their approval of it then they can
arrange to have an Acked-by: line added to the patch's changelog.

Acked-by: is often used by the maintainer of the affected code when that
maintainer neither contributed to nor forwarded the patch.

Acked-by: is not as formal as Signed-off-by:.  It is a record that the acker
has at least reviewed the patch and has indicated acceptance.  Hence patch
mergers will sometimes manually convert an acker's "yep, looks good to me"
into an Acked-by:.

Acked-by: does not necessarily indicate acknowledgement of the entire patch.
For example, if a patch affects multiple subsystems and has an Acked-by: from
one subsystem maintainer then this usually indicates acknowledgement of just
the part which affects that maintainer's code.  Judgement should be used here.
When in doubt people should refer to the original discussion in the mailing
list archives.

If a person has had the opportunity to comment on a patch, but has not
provided such comments, you may optionally add a "Cc:" tag to the patch.
This is the only tag which might be added without an explicit action by the
person it names.  This tag documents that potentially interested parties
have been included in the discussion

---

Which does allow non-maintainers to provide 'Acked-by'. Which
is a lesser version of Reviewed-by by a non-maintainer. As 'Reviewed-by' has:

        Reviewer's statement of oversight

        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.

Now obviously Xen != Linux, but if we want to this 'Acked-by' or
'Reviewed-by' policy to be different from Linux (which I think we
should not), we should have it written somewhere so folks do not
get confused.

And I think George has a different opinion of when Reviewed-by
get carried on patches that undergo modifications. Sadly I don't see
anything in the Linux Documentation/Submitting* to explain what
the rules are for that.

> 
> > Reviewed-by: Dietmar Hahn <dietmar.hahn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Tested-by: Dietmar Hahn <dietmar.hahn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> Acked-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Xen-devel mailing list
> Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel