On Wed, 15 Nov 2023 at 01:35, kft...@nuvoton.com <kft...@nuvoton.com> wrote: > Peter Maydell wrote: > On Tue, 14 Nov 2023 at 01:24, kft...@nuvoton.com <kft...@nuvoton.com> wrote: > > Signed-off-by: Tyrone Ting <kft...@nuvoton.com> > > Hi; can you clarify what you mean with this Signed-off-by: tag? > Generally we use those where either you're the author of the code or else > when you're taking somebody else's patch and including it in work you are > sending to the list, and it doesn't seem like either of those are the case > here.
> Thank you for your comments. In the email thread " [PATCH v4 00/11] > Implementation of NPI Mailbox and GMAC Networking Module", > it says " Hi; I'm afraid this is going to miss the 8.2 release, because it is > still missing any review from Google or Nuvoton people." > > Is it okay to post "Acked by:" or "Reviewed by:" by someone from Nuvoton? If you've reviewed the code and believe it to be good (i.e., it doesn't need any changes), then, yes, by all means please post your Reviewed-by tag. Anybody who has done the work of code review on a patch can send in a Reviewed-by tag to say they've done it. If you've reviewed the code and think there's something that needs to be changed or that you have a question about that, you can reply to the patch to say so. We basically follow the same process here that the Linux kernel does; you can read about the various tags here: https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/v4.17/process/submitting-patches.html#using-reported-by-tested-by-reviewed-by-suggested-by-and-fixes The meaning of "Acked-by:" is a little more disputed; personally I use that for "I haven't reviewed this code, but as a maintainer of the subsystem I don't object to it". thanks -- PMM
