On Tue, Sep 16, 2025 at 10:57:24AM +0200, Christian König wrote: > On 16.09.25 10:12, Jani Nikula wrote: > > On Mon, 15 Sep 2025, Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.v...@intel.com> wrote: > >> On Mon, Sep 15, 2025 at 07:24:10PM +0200, Andi Shyti wrote: > >>> Hi, > >>> > >>> On Mon, Sep 15, 2025 at 03:42:23PM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote: > >>>> On Mon, 15 Sep 2025, Ilpo Järvinen <ilpo.jarvi...@linux.intel.com> wrote: > >>>>> PCI core provides pci_rebar_size_supported() that helps in checking if > >>>>> a BAR Size is supported for the BAR or not. Use it in > >>>>> i915_resize_lmem_bar() to simplify code. > >>>>> > >>>>> Signed-off-by: Ilpo Järvinen <ilpo.jarvi...@linux.intel.com> > >>>>> Acked-by: Christian König <christian.koe...@amd.com> > >>>> > >>>> Reviewed-by: Jani Nikula <jani.nik...@intel.com> > >>>> > >>>> and > >>>> > >>>> Acked-by: Jani Nikula <jani.nik...@intel.com> > >>> > >>> Just for some random noise on commit log's bureaucracy: why do we > >>> need both Ack and R-b? I think R-b covers Ack making it > >>> redundant. Right? > >> > >> reviewed-by is a more formal attestation of the entries in the > >> submitting-patches doc, saying that he carefully reviewed the work. > >> > >> acked by is to state that from the maintainer perspective of that file > >> the file can be merged through any tree. > >> > >> in the drm trees nowdays our tooling is enforcing acked-by tag if > >> the patch is touching domains outside that drm branch itself. > >> > >> if a committer tries to push a patch without ack from the maintainer > >> of that domain it will be blocked. > >> > >> So I believe it is a good idea to keep a separation of the meaning. > >> Carrying a technical review of the patch in question doesn't necessarily > >> mean that you, as maintainer, is okay of getting that patch merged > >> through other trees. > > > > Yes, all of the above. I just wanted to be explicit to avoid the > > follow-up questions "thanks for the review, but is it okay to merge via > > pci" or "thanks for the ack, but does this need review also", and move > > on from this whole thread. (Which is a nice cleanup, btw, thanks.) > > Mhm, that's a really good point. > > My understanding of an Acked-by by a maintainer is also "go a head and merge > it through your tree", but I think we never formally documented that. > > At least I can't find any reference to that in the "When to use Acked-by:, > Cc:, and Co-developed-by:" section of > Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst.
"Acked-by: is also less formal than Reviewed-by:. For instance, maintainers may use it to signify that they are OK with a patch landing, but they may not have reviewed it..." perhaps we should simply s/patch landing/patch landing through any other tree/ > > Regards, > Christian. > > > > > BR, > > Jani. > > >
