?????? [PATCH] linker_lists: Update the alignment using CONFIG_LINKER_LIST_ALIGN

[??????]

Sorry for the confusion and disruption. 
I haven't submitted patches this way before, 
and my English is not very good. 
I was conducted according to the steps 
in the https://docs.u-boot.org/en/latest/develop/patman.html operation.


Can you tell me what else I need to do? 
What I know so far is :
1. I should use another email address; 
2. Seems like i shouldn't send patches directly to this list?
 And it's only submitted to the reviewer for review and then submitted by 
the reviewer?






------------------ ???????? ------------------
??????:                                                                         
                                               "Quentin Schulz"                 
                                                                   
<quentin.sch...@cherry.de&gt;;
????????:&nbsp;2025??1??15??(??????) ????6:58
??????:&nbsp;"??????"<1425075...@qq.com&gt;;"u-boot"<u-boot@lists.denx.de&gt;;
????:&nbsp;"Simon Glass"<s...@chromium.org&gt;;"Tom 
Rini"<tr...@konsulko.com&gt;;
????:&nbsp;Re: [PATCH] linker_lists: Update the alignment using 
CONFIG_LINKER_LIST_ALIGN



Hi Liya,

On 1/14/25 8:09 AM, 1425075...@qq.com wrote:
&gt; [You don't often get email from 1425075...@qq.com. Learn why this is 
important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
&gt; 
&gt; From: Liya Huang <1425075...@qq.com&gt;
&gt; 
&gt; This patch updates the alignment of linker lists to use the
&gt; CONFIG_LINKER_LIST_ALIGN macro instead of a hardcoded value.
&gt; This ensures that the alignment is consistent with the configuration.
&gt; Replace __attribute__((unused)) with __maybe_unused and
&gt; __always_unused to eliminate the warning of checkpatch.pl.
&gt; 
&gt; Reviewed-by: Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org&gt;

This... is odd. I don't see an earlier version of that patch and your 
name/mail only returns two patches on the U-Boot mailing list. I believe 
Reviewed-by needs to be publicly given on the ML as they are a proof of 
review by the mentioned person and is usually a trust mark for 
maintainers to merge code. Here it may have been added without Simon's 
consent. Now imagine Simon is not answering for a few days/weeks, the 
maintainer could still believe Simon went through a proper review and 
merge that patch taking that into account while no review may actually 
have been conducted. This is making me uncomfortable.

Same issue for 
https://lore.kernel.org/u-boot/tencent_cce8303926957c427aae06f9d91282458...@qq.com/.

I'm not saying review wasn't done properly, but its acknowledgment 
should be made public by the mentioned person instead of being put into 
the v1.

Have I missed an earlier version or discussion maybe?

Cheers,
Quentin