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

[Andy Shevchenko]

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@xxxxxxxxxx/
> 
> > 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