From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga14.intel.com (mga14.intel.com [192.55.52.115]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C049DE3 for ; Fri, 27 Jan 2017 11:32:25 +0100 (CET) Received: from fmsmga005.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.32]) by fmsmga103.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 27 Jan 2017 02:32:23 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.33,294,1477983600"; d="scan'208";a="58191663" Received: from irsmsx102.ger.corp.intel.com ([163.33.3.155]) by fmsmga005.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 27 Jan 2017 02:32:22 -0800 Received: from irsmsx103.ger.corp.intel.com ([169.254.3.77]) by IRSMSX102.ger.corp.intel.com ([169.254.2.230]) with mapi id 14.03.0248.002; Fri, 27 Jan 2017 10:32:21 +0000 From: "Mcnamara, John" To: Shreyansh Jain , "Richardson, Bruce" CC: Thomas Monjalon , "Van Haaren, Harry" , "dev@dpdk.org" , "Yigit, Ferruh" , Igor Ryzhov , Steve Shin Thread-Topic: [dpdk-dev] Understanding of Acked-By Thread-Index: AdJ3DSgm1AEdeGBtQJuh0EF8q0Uy0wADmJsAAFR9ogAABhxTAAAAaHWAAAAfQkA= Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2017 10:32:20 +0000 Message-ID: References: <2358632.GCFl4gnRC2@xps13> <7fb35576-ba10-019a-a6ba-e38418e03848@nxp.com> <20170127101304.GA69896@bricha3-MOBL3.ger.corp.intel.com> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-ctpclassification: CTP_IC x-titus-metadata-40: eyJDYXRlZ29yeUxhYmVscyI6IiIsIk1ldGFkYXRhIjp7Im5zIjoiaHR0cDpcL1wvd3d3LnRpdHVzLmNvbVwvbnNcL0ludGVsMyIsImlkIjoiM2M1ODMwNTQtZDBlMi00YWVlLThjMDctOTY1MjhiYjNiOGY5IiwicHJvcHMiOlt7Im4iOiJDVFBDbGFzc2lmaWNhdGlvbiIsInZhbHMiOlt7InZhbHVlIjoiQ1RQX0lDIn1dfV19LCJTdWJqZWN0TGFiZWxzIjpbXSwiVE1DVmVyc2lvbiI6IjE1LjkuNi42IiwiVHJ1c3RlZExhYmVsSGFzaCI6InVMTlZSRWhwdTd5R2pkajBZdE5CXC9aZU1Pa1AySDUyT3M3UUxBTlRmczJnPSJ9 x-originating-ip: [163.33.239.181] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] Understanding of Acked-By 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: Fri, 27 Jan 2017 10:32:25 -0000 > -----Original Message----- > From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Shreyansh Jain > Sent: Friday, January 27, 2017 10:25 AM > To: Richardson, Bruce > Cc: Thomas Monjalon ; Van Haaren, Harry > ; dev@dpdk.org; Yigit, Ferruh > ; Igor Ryzhov ; Steve Shin > > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] Understanding of Acked-By >=20 > On Friday 27 January 2017 03:43 PM, Bruce Richardson wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 12:48:06PM +0530, Shreyansh Jain wrote: > >> On Wednesday 25 January 2017 08:28 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > >>> 2017-01-25 13:53, Van Haaren, Harry: > >>>> There was an idea (from Thomas) to better document the Acked-by and > Reviewed-By in the above thread, which I think is worth doing to make the > process clearer. I'll kick off a thread*, and offer to submit a patch for > the documentation when a consensus is reached. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> The question that needs to be addressed is "What is the most powerfu= l > signoff to add as somebody who checked a patch?" > >>> > >>> I do not see the benefit of knowing the most powerful. > >>> Anyway, the most powerful tags are done by trusted people. > >>> And people are trusted after delivering good reviews or patches ;) > >>> > >>> The question should be "How to use the tags?" > >>> > >>>> The documentation mentions Acked, Reviewed, and Tested by[1], as > signoffs that can be commented on patches. The Review Process[2] section > mentions Reviewed and Tested by, but nowhere specifically states what any > of these indicate. > >>>> > >>>> Offered below is my current understanding of the Acked-by; Reviewed- > by; and Tested-by tags, in order of least-powerful first: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> 3) Tested-by: (least powerful) > >>>> - Indicates having passed testing of functionality, and works as > expected for Tester > >>>> - Does NOT include full code review (instead use Reviewed by) > >>>> - Does NOT indicate that the Tester understands architecture > >>>> (instead use Acked by) > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> 2) Reviewed-by: > >>>> - Indicates having passed code-review, checkpatch and compilation > >>>> testing by Reviewer > >>> > >>> Compilation testing is done by the CI. > >>> The reviewer must just check the results. > >>> > >>>> - Does NOT include full testing of functionality (instead use > Tested-by) > >>>> - Does NOT indicate that the Reviewer understands architecture > >>>> (instead use Acked by) > >>> > >>> I disagree here. > >>> The reviewer must understand the impacts of the patch. > >>> That's why a Reviewed-by tag is really strong. > >> > >> From what I understand, 'Reviewed-by' and 'Acked-by' are the other > >> way around. > >> - Acked-by is intent that 'I agree with change'. > >> - Reviewed-by is 'I vouch for the changes' either through review or > >> testing or both. > >> > > > > Other way round in what way - compared to proposed by Harry or by > > Thomas? Which do you view as the stronger indication that the patch is > > ok? >=20 > Sorry, I should have posted this against Harry's mail rather than Thomas'= . > 'Other way round' as compared to Harry's text. > Reviewed-by is a strong indication, in my understanding. Hi, Maybe we should just follow the Kernel guidelines on this: https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/submitting-patches.html#when= -to-use-acked-by-and-cc And to, save-you-a-click(tm) here is the relevant sections of the doc: 12) 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 ask 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 acke= r 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: (but note that it is usually better to ask for an explicit ack). Acked-by: does not necessarily indicate acknowledgement of the entire patch= . For example, if a patch affects multiple subsystems and has an Acked-by: fr= om one subsystem maintainer then this usually indicates acknowledgement of jus= t the part which affects that maintainer's code. Judgement should be used he= re. 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 - but it should indicate that this person was copied on the patch. This tag documents that potentially interested parties have been included in the discussion. 13) Using Reported-by:, Tested-by:, Reviewed-by:, Suggested-by: and Fixes: -------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Reported-by tag gives credit to people who find bugs and report them an= d it hopefully inspires them to help us again in the future. Please note that i= f the bug was reported in private, then ask for permission first before using= the Reported-by tag. A Tested-by: tag indicates that the patch has been successfully tested (in some environment) by the person named. This tag informs maintainers that some testing has been performed, provides a means to locate testers for future patches, and ensures credit for the testers. Reviewed-by:, instead, indicates that the patch has been reviewed and found acceptable according to the Reviewer's Statement: 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. A Reviewed-by tag is a statement of opinion that the patch is an appropriate modification of the kernel without any remaining serious technical issues. Any interested reviewer (who has done the work) can offer a Reviewed-by tag for a patch. This tag serves to give credit to reviewers and to inform maintainers of the degree of review which has been done on the patch. Reviewed-by: tags, when supplied by reviewers known to understand the subject area and to perform thorough reviews, will normally increase the likelihood of your patch getting into the kernel. A Suggested-by: tag indicates that the patch idea is suggested by the perso= n named and ensures credit to the person for the idea. Please note that this tag should not be added without the reporter's permission, especially if th= e idea was not posted in a public forum. That said, if we diligently credit o= ur idea reporters, they will, hopefully, be inspired to help us again in the future. A Fixes: tag indicates that the patch fixes an issue in a previous commit. = It is used to make it easy to determine where a bug originated, which can help review a bug fix. This tag also assists the stable kernel team in determini= ng which stable kernel versions should receive your fix. This is the preferred method for indicating a bug fixed by the patch. See :ref:`describe_changes` for more details.