From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wm0-f51.google.com (mail-wm0-f51.google.com [74.125.82.51]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3313DB6D for ; Wed, 25 Jan 2017 11:25:32 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail-wm0-f51.google.com with SMTP id d140so50646340wmd.0 for ; Wed, 25 Jan 2017 02:25:32 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=6wind-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:user-agent:in-reply-to :references:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=7SBhRDuDBQFchH66sRuC6bOjFH4AvenJ+FgXasi+EqY=; b=z5F9230gT1QXYwWe8YMA5VtYxOGfjZa3vXpD0ev1sEy45/apMdb5QXf87Bi1zRUK/q W1q9flCcCjHLBEjmR7f+I7hD/puZEFGxt5WxH4lPKswGnoiajLfvTE4D3JWe8LC0fBa3 UuYwQ7cMfAHw3iDpRoeKLIz5ys5TZaTRIJ5iRj2vkO7wXMfZc2T6b22NlhyiS2w7KyS1 P2JqBKQQV5cP25ty48O0HdzWsP1Yj3knIhScD1e2JG8msE7Ydjv2WhN/uzZalwisGLog 6HbPxkTu1Z0b7zAhZLXn5oqkKbihrOBEqoQTOW9I2tL1DJ+fhCXCqdR4oy+CDtrjgzaq C5Uw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:user-agent :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=7SBhRDuDBQFchH66sRuC6bOjFH4AvenJ+FgXasi+EqY=; b=M9qVAwpoC73Qand6f/CONjnueNGB9PqYhnnRwoNDtoV8BnfV9Q4uhi+NuhGwp6RUHf RHITzhqZwevbBnn5JYTO/6rN83foeIC87uExxQ84B8tRyIh20kv1ZzLzgnYV/NQ8bPzL mV48vPcln/0IxfZEFXUdFZsr1WI8ARTAGJuU8moCKxKDnH5wAM2aT3cN+QGd9rmwcqKa xVOhp1571NgQ2HS8N86eUCON48Egh4XfiPdKa4Ke1WQ9gtV/nCPO8ec8Yo66EyFtxmve sEAG8WluEaY44wmCdQCele7uSdc/bq7JdLa/nojDpGrcY55zp4IoP4CKDQKQVaGW9EfT sGpw== X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXIfCt45nFZs9BMISCHg0hzzf/66TMhDQ3FHcMBl+OrNJus7GnzCpUpDkK64fX3qqClf X-Received: by 10.28.45.197 with SMTP id t188mr23958818wmt.15.1485339931889; Wed, 25 Jan 2017 02:25:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from xps13.localnet (184.203.134.77.rev.sfr.net. [77.134.203.184]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 198sm826704wmn.11.2017.01.25.02.25.30 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 25 Jan 2017 02:25:31 -0800 (PST) From: Thomas Monjalon To: Ferruh Yigit , Igor Ryzhov Cc: Steve Shin , dev@dpdk.org Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2017 11:25:30 +0100 Message-ID: <1679033.GODGAxT5Vg@xps13> User-Agent: KMail/4.14.10 (Linux/4.5.4-1-ARCH; KDE/4.14.11; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: <5cd19f6a-311c-b0fe-5d6c-ee757ac2e86e@intel.com> References: <20170123235020.19641-1-jonshin@cisco.com> <5cd19f6a-311c-b0fe-5d6c-ee757ac2e86e@intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4] ethdev: fix MAC address replay X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2017 10:25:32 -0000 2017-01-24 13:21, Ferruh Yigit: > On 1/24/2017 10:09 AM, Igor Ryzhov wrote: > > Thank you Steve. > > > > > I never did it before and I don't know if I have rights for that, but: > > > > Acked-by: Igor Ryzhov > > > Unrelated to the patch itself, but since it has been mentioned, let me > share what I know, I believe Thomas or others will correct me if I am wrong: > > - Everyone can Ack. > And this is useful information for maintainers, so it is something > good when more people review and ack. Please do. > > - Multiple ack or review is better. > > - But each Ack does not have same weight, maintainer decides on this > weight, based on contribution of the person who ack'ed. > > - There is slight difference between Acked-by and Reviewed-by: > > -- Acked-by: Kind of asking for patch to be applied, saying this patch > is good and please get it. > > -- Reviewed-by: Saying I have done the review at my best and patch looks > good to me. > > Acked-by has slightly more responsibility than Reviewed-by. > > If you are not maintainer of that field, and not have strong opinion > about that patch to be merged, it is possible to prefer Reviewed-by > against Acked-by. > > But overall both are good, and definitely better than not saying > anything at all. We should definitely better document these tags. My view is that Reviewed-by is stronger because it says you really checked the patch. Acked-by means you agree with the intent and you trust the author. Any of these tags will be stronger if it is delivered by a maintainer. As conclusion, here you should stress you took the review job with a Reviewed-by tag. A maintainer is more inclined to use the Acked-by tag, even if he does a review. As the maintainer of ethdev, I thank you to take the review job so I won't have to wonder which kind of regression could be in the patch. I will just check the intent and will rely on your Reviewed-by.