Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Wed, 04 Apr 2018 17:14:46 -0700 (PDT)
Subject:     Re: [PATCH v5 2/3] lib: Rename compiler intrinsic selects to GENERIC_LIB_*
In-Reply-To: <20180404220258.GA9347@saruman>
CC:     matt.redfearn@mips.com, antonynpavlov@gmail.com,
        ralf@linux-mips.org, linux-mips@linux-mips.org, mcgrof@kernel.org,
        robin.murphy@arm.com, geert@linux-m68k.org,
        linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org, clm@fb.com,
        ynorov@caviumnetworks.com, jk@ozlabs.org, f.fainelli@gmail.com,
        Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        akpm@linux-foundation.org, bart.vanassche@wdc.com, robh@kernel.org,
        terrelln@fb.com, dan.j.williams@intel.com, albert@sifive.com,
        viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, tom@quantonium.net,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, richard@nod.at,
        paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com
From:   Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@sifive.com>
To:     jhogan@kernel.org
Message-ID: <mhng-80bc3ae8-ec63-4482-ad4e-1dddec475753@palmer-si-x1c4>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (MHng)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, 04 Apr 2018 15:02:58 PDT (-0700), jhogan@kernel.org wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 03, 2018 at 03:39:34PM -0700, Palmer Dabbelt wrote:
>> Sorry, I'm not sure if this is the right patch -- someone suggested acking 
>> this, but it's already Review-By me and if I understand correctly it's going 
>> through your tree.  I'm a bit new to this, but if it helps then here's a
>> 
>> Acked-By: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@sifive.com>
>
> Thanks Palmer.
>
> No worries. FYI Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst appears to
> now contain lots of gory detail about what Acked-by and Reviewed-by are
> supposed to mean.
>
> In this case an acked-by is needed to show your approval of the parts of
> the patch which touch the subsystem you are responsible for (and/or code
> which you have authored) so that the patch can go via another tree. It
> usually indicates that you've reviewed those parts of the patch too, but
> not necessarily the whole thing.

Thanks!