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

[Jürgen Groß]

On 05.11.26 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.
>
> 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) 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.

I fully agree with Andy.

As the Xen maintainer I often have to look into such rework patches and often
enough especially the Xen specific parts are mentioned in the patch description
as "compile tested only".

I see a "Reviewed-by: ... # Xen parts" in such cases as a feedback to the author
or committer that they don't have to look into those parts in more detail.

The value of such a R-b: is more questionable in case of a pure rename of a
function or struct member, of course.


Juergen

Attachment: OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature