2017-01-24 13:21, Ferruh Yigit:

On 1/24/2017 10:09 AM, Igor Ryzhov wrote:

quoted

Thank you Steve.

quoted

I never did it before and I don't know if I have rights for that, but:

Acked-by: Igor Ryzhov <iryzhov@nfware.com <mailto:iryzhov@nfware.com>>

Unrelated to the patch itself, but since it has been mentioned, let me
share what I know, I believe Thomas or others will correct me if I am wrong:

- Everyone can Ack.
  And this is useful information for maintainers, so it is something
good when more people review and ack. Please do.

- Multiple ack or review is better.

- But each Ack does not have same weight, maintainer decides on this
weight, based on contribution of the person who ack'ed.

- There is slight difference between Acked-by and Reviewed-by:

-- Acked-by: Kind of asking for patch to be applied, saying this patch
is good and please get it.

-- Reviewed-by: Saying I have done the review at my best and patch looks
good to me.

Acked-by has slightly more responsibility than Reviewed-by.

If you are not maintainer of that field, and not have strong opinion
about that patch to be merged, it is possible to prefer Reviewed-by
against Acked-by.

But overall both are good, and definitely better than not saying
anything at all.

We should definitely better document these tags.

My view is that Reviewed-by is stronger because it says you really checked
the patch.
Acked-by means you agree with the intent and you trust the author.
Any of these tags will be stronger if it is delivered by a maintainer.

As conclusion, here you should stress you took the review job with a
Reviewed-by tag.
A maintainer is more inclined to use the Acked-by tag, even if he does
a review.

As the maintainer of ethdev, I thank you to take the review job so I won't
have to wonder which kind of regression could be in the patch.
I will just check the intent and will rely on your Reviewed-by.