Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20210829095614.50021-1-kari.argillander@gmail.com>
 <20210907073618.bpz3fmu7jcx5mlqh@kari-VirtualBox> <69c8ab24-9443-59ad-d48d-7765b29f28f9@paragon-software.com>
 <CAHp75Vd==Dm1s=WK9p2q3iEBSHxN-1spHmmtZ21eRNoqyJ5v=Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAC=eVgTwDsE+i3jG+iwZJhFDBXzCyPprRnGk5tjUKXP+Ltrw4w@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAC=eVgTwDsE+i3jG+iwZJhFDBXzCyPprRnGk5tjUKXP+Ltrw4w@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 8 Sep 2021 12:00:38 +0300
Message-ID: <CAHp75VetzFedGyqaB5TmsBH5UjBYpR8rimGmt8scn5fZ4FRbqg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/9] fs/ntfs3: Use new mount api and change some opts
To:     Kari Argillander <kari.argillander@gmail.com>
Cc:     Konstantin Komarov <almaz.alexandrovich@paragon-software.com>,
        "ntfs3@lists.linux.dev" <ntfs3@lists.linux.dev>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Sep 7, 2021 at 11:47 PM Kari Argillander
<kari.argillander@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 7, 2021, Andy Shevchenko
> (andy.shevchenko@gmail.com) wrote:
> > On Tuesday, September 7, 2021, Konstantin Komarov <almaz.alexandrovich@paragon-software.com> wrote:
> >> On 07.09.2021 10:36, Kari Argillander wrote:

...

> >> Yes, everything else seems good.
> >> We tested patches locally - no regression was
> >
> > The formal answer in such case should also contain the Tested-by tag. I would suggest you to read the Submitting Patches document (available in the Linux kernel source tree).
>
> He is a maintainer so he can add tags when he picks this up.

It's a good practice to do so. Moreover, it's better to do it
patch-by-patch, so tools like `b4` can cope with tags for *anybody*
who will use it in automated way.

> This is not
> really relevant here.

Why not?

> Yes it should be good to include that but I have already
> sended v4 which he has not tested. So I really cannot put this tag for him.
> So at the end he really should not even put it here.

For v4 I agree with you.

> Also usually the maintainers will always make their own tests and usually
> they will not even bother with a tested-by tag.

If it's their own code, yes, if it's others', why not? See above as well.

> Or do you say to me that I
> should go read Submitting Patches document as I'm the one who submit
> this?

It's always good to refresh memory, so why not? :-)

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko