Re: [PATCH 03/12] libata, libsas: introduce sched_eh and end_eh port ops

[Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 3:22 PM, James Bottomley
<James.Bottomley@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> No, it means:
>>
>> "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
>> arrange to have an Acked-by: line added to the patch's changelog."
>
> Isn't that tested-by or reviewed-by?

Quoting from Documentation/SubmittingPatches was just a tongue in
cheek way of pointing out that you have a local/narrower
interpretation of Acked-by, and that Jacek's Acked-by is consistent
with what's documented.

[..]
> We're just struggling to understand why it's there.  If it's read and
> approved the patch, then reviewed-by is the more appropriate.  If it's
> actually booted and ran through a set of unit/QA tests, then it should
> be tested-by.
>

Ok, reviewed-by is what we'll aim to do for Intel-internal "acks" for
isci / libsas going forward.

--
Dan
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ide" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html