| Message ID | 1623222893-123227-1-git-send-email-yang.lee@linux.alibaba.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [v2] dmaengine: xilinx: dpdma: fix kernel-doc | expand |
On Wed, Jun 9, 2021 at 12:15 AM Yang Li <yang.lee@linux.alibaba.com> wrote: > > Fix function name in xilinx/xilinx_dpdma.c comment to remove > a warning found by kernel-doc. > > drivers/dma/xilinx/xilinx_dpdma.c:935: warning: expecting prototype for > xilinx_dpdma_chan_no_ostand(). Prototype was for > xilinx_dpdma_chan_notify_no_ostand() instead. > > Reported-by: Abaci Robot <abaci@linux.alibaba.com> > Signed-off-by: Yang Li <yang.lee@linux.alibaba.com> > Reviewed-by: Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com> > Reviewed-by: Nathan Chancellor <nathan@kernel.org> I'm ok with leaving my reviewed by on _this_ patch because it's so simple but... In general, when sending a follow up version of a patch, it's _not_ ok to add a reviewed by tag when a reviewer has not explicitly responded with "Reviewed-by: ...". That provides a false sense that a patch has been thoroughly reviewed. Responding to a patch does not constitute a "Reviewed-by:" tag. And I might be fine with _this_ patch, but that says nothing about Nathan, whom you've also falsely attributed a reviewed by tag here. For such a trivial patch, it's not a big deal, but in the future please do not do that again. It's ok to send v2, v3, etc, but wait for reviewers to explicitly state such reviewed by tag. The maintainer will collect those responses (and can be done so in an automated fashion via a tool like b4 (https://pypi.org/project/b4/)) when applying patches. > --- > > Change in v2: > --replaced s/clang(make W=1 LLVM=1)/kernel-doc/ in commit. > https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/patch/1442639/ > > drivers/dma/xilinx/xilinx_dpdma.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/dma/xilinx/xilinx_dpdma.c b/drivers/dma/xilinx/xilinx_dpdma.c > index 70b29bd..0c8739a 100644 > --- a/drivers/dma/xilinx/xilinx_dpdma.c > +++ b/drivers/dma/xilinx/xilinx_dpdma.c > @@ -915,7 +915,7 @@ static u32 xilinx_dpdma_chan_ostand(struct xilinx_dpdma_chan *chan) > } > > /** > - * xilinx_dpdma_chan_no_ostand - Notify no outstanding transaction event > + * xilinx_dpdma_chan_notify_no_ostand - Notify no outstanding transaction event > * @chan: DPDMA channel > * > * Notify waiters for no outstanding event, so waiters can stop the channel > -- > 1.8.3.1 >
On 6/9/2021 11:03 AM, Nick Desaulniers wrote: > On Wed, Jun 9, 2021 at 12:15 AM Yang Li <yang.lee@linux.alibaba.com> wrote: >> >> Fix function name in xilinx/xilinx_dpdma.c comment to remove >> a warning found by kernel-doc. >> >> drivers/dma/xilinx/xilinx_dpdma.c:935: warning: expecting prototype for >> xilinx_dpdma_chan_no_ostand(). Prototype was for >> xilinx_dpdma_chan_notify_no_ostand() instead. >> >> Reported-by: Abaci Robot <abaci@linux.alibaba.com> >> Signed-off-by: Yang Li <yang.lee@linux.alibaba.com> >> Reviewed-by: Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com> >> Reviewed-by: Nathan Chancellor <nathan@kernel.org> > > I'm ok with leaving my reviewed by on _this_ patch because it's so simple but... > > In general, when sending a follow up version of a patch, it's _not_ ok > to add a reviewed by tag when a reviewer has not explicitly responded > with "Reviewed-by: ...". That provides a false sense that a patch has > been thoroughly reviewed. Responding to a patch does not constitute a > "Reviewed-by:" tag. > > And I might be fine with _this_ patch, but that says nothing about > Nathan, whom you've also falsely attributed a reviewed by tag here. > > For such a trivial patch, it's not a big deal, but in the future > please do not do that again. It's ok to send v2, v3, etc, but wait > for reviewers to explicitly state such reviewed by tag. The maintainer > will collect those responses (and can be done so in an automated > fashion via a tool like b4 (https://pypi.org/project/b4/)) when > applying patches. +1 with all that was said above. Tags should be explicitly given, except for maybe the "Reported-by" and "Suggested-by" tags if the report or suggestion was done in the public forum but it is still polite to ask if it is okay to add. For the record, my tag can remain: Reviewed-by: Nathan Chancellor <nathan@kernel.org> >> --- >> >> Change in v2: >> --replaced s/clang(make W=1 LLVM=1)/kernel-doc/ in commit. >> https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/patch/1442639/ >> >> drivers/dma/xilinx/xilinx_dpdma.c | 2 +- >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/dma/xilinx/xilinx_dpdma.c b/drivers/dma/xilinx/xilinx_dpdma.c >> index 70b29bd..0c8739a 100644 >> --- a/drivers/dma/xilinx/xilinx_dpdma.c >> +++ b/drivers/dma/xilinx/xilinx_dpdma.c >> @@ -915,7 +915,7 @@ static u32 xilinx_dpdma_chan_ostand(struct xilinx_dpdma_chan *chan) >> } >> >> /** >> - * xilinx_dpdma_chan_no_ostand - Notify no outstanding transaction event >> + * xilinx_dpdma_chan_notify_no_ostand - Notify no outstanding transaction event >> * @chan: DPDMA channel >> * >> * Notify waiters for no outstanding event, so waiters can stop the channel >> -- >> 1.8.3.1 >> > >
Hi Yang Li, Thank you for the patch. On Wed, Jun 09, 2021 at 03:14:53PM +0800, Yang Li wrote: > Fix function name in xilinx/xilinx_dpdma.c comment to remove > a warning found by kernel-doc. > > drivers/dma/xilinx/xilinx_dpdma.c:935: warning: expecting prototype for > xilinx_dpdma_chan_no_ostand(). Prototype was for > xilinx_dpdma_chan_notify_no_ostand() instead. > > Reported-by: Abaci Robot <abaci@linux.alibaba.com> > Signed-off-by: Yang Li <yang.lee@linux.alibaba.com> > Reviewed-by: Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com> > Reviewed-by: Nathan Chancellor <nathan@kernel.org> Reviewed-by: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com> > --- > > Change in v2: > --replaced s/clang(make W=1 LLVM=1)/kernel-doc/ in commit. > https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/patch/1442639/ > > drivers/dma/xilinx/xilinx_dpdma.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/dma/xilinx/xilinx_dpdma.c b/drivers/dma/xilinx/xilinx_dpdma.c > index 70b29bd..0c8739a 100644 > --- a/drivers/dma/xilinx/xilinx_dpdma.c > +++ b/drivers/dma/xilinx/xilinx_dpdma.c > @@ -915,7 +915,7 @@ static u32 xilinx_dpdma_chan_ostand(struct xilinx_dpdma_chan *chan) > } > > /** > - * xilinx_dpdma_chan_no_ostand - Notify no outstanding transaction event > + * xilinx_dpdma_chan_notify_no_ostand - Notify no outstanding transaction event > * @chan: DPDMA channel > * > * Notify waiters for no outstanding event, so waiters can stop the channel
diff --git a/drivers/dma/xilinx/xilinx_dpdma.c b/drivers/dma/xilinx/xilinx_dpdma.c index 70b29bd..0c8739a 100644 --- a/drivers/dma/xilinx/xilinx_dpdma.c +++ b/drivers/dma/xilinx/xilinx_dpdma.c @@ -915,7 +915,7 @@ static u32 xilinx_dpdma_chan_ostand(struct xilinx_dpdma_chan *chan) } /** - * xilinx_dpdma_chan_no_ostand - Notify no outstanding transaction event + * xilinx_dpdma_chan_notify_no_ostand - Notify no outstanding transaction event * @chan: DPDMA channel * * Notify waiters for no outstanding event, so waiters can stop the channel