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. Regards, Christian. > > BR, > Jani. >
