| Message ID | 1623223350-128104-1-git-send-email-yang.lee@linux.alibaba.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Delegated to: | Daniel Lezcano |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [v2] thermal: devfreq_cooling: Fix kernel-doc | expand |
On Wed, Jun 9, 2021 at 12:22 AM Yang Li <yang.lee@linux.alibaba.com> wrote: > > Fix function name in devfreq_cooling.c comment to remove a > warning found by kernel-doc. > > drivers/thermal/devfreq_cooling.c:479: warning: expecting prototype for > devfreq_cooling_em_register_power(). Prototype was for > devfreq_cooling_em_register() 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/thermal/devfreq_cooling.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/thermal/devfreq_cooling.c b/drivers/thermal/devfreq_cooling.c > index 3a788ac..5a86cff 100644 > --- a/drivers/thermal/devfreq_cooling.c > +++ b/drivers/thermal/devfreq_cooling.c > @@ -458,7 +458,7 @@ struct thermal_cooling_device *devfreq_cooling_register(struct devfreq *df) > EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(devfreq_cooling_register); > > /** > - * devfreq_cooling_em_register_power() - Register devfreq cooling device with > + * devfreq_cooling_em_register() - Register devfreq cooling device with > * power information and automatically register Energy Model (EM) > * @df: Pointer to devfreq device. > * @dfc_power: Pointer to devfreq_cooling_power. > -- > 1.8.3.1 >
On 6/9/2021 11:02 AM, Nick Desaulniers wrote: > On Wed, Jun 9, 2021 at 12:22 AM Yang Li <yang.lee@linux.alibaba.com> wrote: >> >> Fix function name in devfreq_cooling.c comment to remove a >> warning found by kernel-doc. >> >> drivers/thermal/devfreq_cooling.c:479: warning: expecting prototype for >> devfreq_cooling_em_register_power(). Prototype was for >> devfreq_cooling_em_register() 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 reviewed-by tag can stand: 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/thermal/devfreq_cooling.c | 2 +- >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/thermal/devfreq_cooling.c b/drivers/thermal/devfreq_cooling.c >> index 3a788ac..5a86cff 100644 >> --- a/drivers/thermal/devfreq_cooling.c >> +++ b/drivers/thermal/devfreq_cooling.c >> @@ -458,7 +458,7 @@ struct thermal_cooling_device *devfreq_cooling_register(struct devfreq *df) >> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(devfreq_cooling_register); >> >> /** >> - * devfreq_cooling_em_register_power() - Register devfreq cooling device with >> + * devfreq_cooling_em_register() - Register devfreq cooling device with >> * power information and automatically register Energy Model (EM) >> * @df: Pointer to devfreq device. >> * @dfc_power: Pointer to devfreq_cooling_power. >> -- >> 1.8.3.1 >> > >
On 6/9/21 8:22 AM, Yang Li wrote: > Fix function name in devfreq_cooling.c comment to remove a > warning found by kernel-doc. > > drivers/thermal/devfreq_cooling.c:479: warning: expecting prototype for > devfreq_cooling_em_register_power(). Prototype was for > devfreq_cooling_em_register() 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> Everything was said regarding these Reviewed-by tags and you got them in this thread, so should be OK Thank you Nathan and Nick for explaining this and sorting out. Small hint for next time, the Signed-off-by should be at the bottom of that list. > --- > > Change in v2: > --replaced s/clang(make W=1 LLVM=1)/kernel-doc/ in commit. > https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/patch/1442639/ > > drivers/thermal/devfreq_cooling.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/thermal/devfreq_cooling.c b/drivers/thermal/devfreq_cooling.c > index 3a788ac..5a86cff 100644 > --- a/drivers/thermal/devfreq_cooling.c > +++ b/drivers/thermal/devfreq_cooling.c > @@ -458,7 +458,7 @@ struct thermal_cooling_device *devfreq_cooling_register(struct devfreq *df) > EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(devfreq_cooling_register); > > /** > - * devfreq_cooling_em_register_power() - Register devfreq cooling device with > + * devfreq_cooling_em_register() - Register devfreq cooling device with > * power information and automatically register Energy Model (EM) > * @df: Pointer to devfreq device. > * @dfc_power: Pointer to devfreq_cooling_power. > Apart from that, the change itself is OK. I forgot about this comment function name in some iteration... my apologies for that. LGTM Reviewed-by: Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@arm.com> Regards, Lukasz Luba
diff --git a/drivers/thermal/devfreq_cooling.c b/drivers/thermal/devfreq_cooling.c index 3a788ac..5a86cff 100644 --- a/drivers/thermal/devfreq_cooling.c +++ b/drivers/thermal/devfreq_cooling.c @@ -458,7 +458,7 @@ struct thermal_cooling_device *devfreq_cooling_register(struct devfreq *df) EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(devfreq_cooling_register); /** - * devfreq_cooling_em_register_power() - Register devfreq cooling device with + * devfreq_cooling_em_register() - Register devfreq cooling device with * power information and automatically register Energy Model (EM) * @df: Pointer to devfreq device. * @dfc_power: Pointer to devfreq_cooling_power.