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

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On 05/11/2026 10:28, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> 
>>> Yes, if you want to spoil that, you'd need to introduce
>>>
>>> 	Partly-reviewed-by: ...
>>>
>>> or something.
>>
>> Ack is for that, no need for a new tag, quoting:
>>
>> "Acked-by.... user may not have carried out a technical review of the
>> patch, yet they may be satisfied ..."
> 
> It seems you are mainly aiming about the "Ack/Rev"-distinction problem.
> I don't care so much about this. I care more about the "# subpart"
> problem. A list of 10 Acks without subpart is to me as useless as 10
> Revs without subpart. The subparts give me the idea which parts of the
> patch have been looked at in some way, at least.

Sure, let's encourage that. I do not oppose "# subpart" usage as you can
see in this version of patch. So far it was simply implied. We know many
names of maintainers so when Mark acks patch under regulator part of
files, we know he looked and acked at regulator part.

> 
>> "Reviewed-by:, instead, indicates that *the patch* has been reviewed and
>> found acceptable according to the Reviewer's Statement:"
> 
> So, for the SPI patch: if someone spent time and reviewed the complex
> core changes, but only 2 out of dozens of drivers, this would be an Ack
> according to you. I would, however, understand that this person doesn't

No, and I explained this in this commit msg. That person reviewed the
MAIN concept of the 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."


> want to repeat the boring driver review a number of times. I'd happily
> accept an:
> 
> 	Reviewed-by: <hero@xxxxxxxxxxxx> # for the core parts
> 
> But still, the driver parts need review. We got a similar patch for I2C
> and 4 drivers out of those needed some cosmetic improvements. I reviewed
> that. But I did not review the changes in the dmaengine core which lead
> to the driver-fixes patch.

Nowhere in my patch here I said you CANNOT review part of the patch or
cannot even leave Rb tag for such case, right? What are we discussing
now, exactly?

Do you agree that if person skips the main point of the patch, the hard
part, and reviews only less important part, that looks more as an Ack,
than Rb, considering how "Reviewer's statement of oversight" is worded?


Best regards,
Krzysztof