Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::3:2 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::3:2;
Message-ID: <0be16a8e-5f4f-4c26-d6b1-c090accfac5c@quicinc.com>
Date:   Thu, 2 Nov 2023 12:05:33 +0530
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.13.0
Subject: Re: [PATCH] eventfs: Fix kerneldoc of eventfs_remove_rec()
To:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
CC:     LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Trace Kernel <linux-trace-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
References: <20231030121523.0b2225a7@gandalf.local.home>
 <9d71fc3b-f7a9-9f23-6fbe-a7665954cd30@quicinc.com>
 <20231101160035.12824b55@gandalf.local.home>
Content-Language: en-US
From:   Mukesh Ojha <quic_mojha@quicinc.com>
In-Reply-To: <20231101160035.12824b55@gandalf.local.home>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk


On 11/2/2023 1:30 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Oct 2023 21:57:13 +0530
> Mukesh Ojha <quic_mojha@quicinc.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 10/30/2023 9:45 PM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>>> From: "Steven Rostedt (Google)" <rostedt@goodmis.org>
>>>
>>> The eventfs_remove_rec() had some missing parameters in the kerneldoc
>>> comment above it. Also, rephrase the description a bit more to have a bit
>>> more correct grammar.
>>>
>>> Fixes: 5790b1fb3d672 ("eventfs: Remove eventfs_file and just use eventfs_inode");
>>> Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>
>>> Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/oe-kbuild-all/202310052216.4SgqasWo-lkp@intel.com/
>>> Signed-off-by: Steven Rostedt (Google) <rostedt@goodmis.org>
>>
>> Reviewed-by: Mukesh Ojha <quic_mojha@quicinc.com>
> 
> Hi Mukesh!
> 
> First, I want to thank you for your reviews. We certainly need more
> reviewers.
> 
> But I need to also state that "Reviewed-by" tags should not be sent so
> lightly. The only times a Reviewed-by tag should be sent is if you
> participated in the discussion of the code, you have authored some of
> the code that is being modified, or are marked as a reviewer of the code in
> the MAINTAINERS file.

Thanks Steven for writing a suggestion note for me.

I will try to participate and take this in a good way..but i thought
for easier change where there is no discussion is needed., it is fine
to add if you have spent time in checking the code and change is proper.

> 
> For example, you added to the discussion here:
> 
>     https://lore.kernel.org/all/65dcdd9c-a75b-4fe7-bdcf-471a5602db20@linaro.org/
> 
> And adding your Reviewed-by tag is appropriate.
> 
> But when a maintainer receives a Reviewed-by from someone they don't know,
> without any discussion in the patch, it may make that maintainer think that
> the person sending the Reviewed-by is only out to get listed in the LWN
> "Reviewed-by" count.

I understand..

> 
> I review other developers' code all the time, and unless the code touches
> something I worked on or I'm marked as a reviewer in the MAINTAINERS file,
> I do not send a Reviewed-by tag unless I added some input to the patch in
> question.

Will keep this in mind.
To get involve in LKML discussion, Sending Reviewed-by may not be
important but the discussions/engagement/contribution is .
> 
> My advice to you is to keep up the reviewing, I appreciate it (I really
> do!), but don't send out Reviewed-by tags unless you are marked as a
> reviewer of the code, or participated in a discussion on that code.

Sure, thanks, will try to do my bit.

-Mukesh

> 
> Thanks,
> 
> -- Steve
>