Re: [PATCH v5 03/11] hw/misc: Add qtest for NPCM7xx PCI Mailbox

[Peter Maydell]

On Wed, 15 Nov 2023 at 01:35, KFTING@nuvoton.com <KFTING@nuvoton.com> wrote:
> Peter Maydell wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Nov 2023 at 01:24, KFTING@nuvoton.com <KFTING@nuvoton.com> wrote:
> > Signed-off-by: Tyrone Ting <kfting@nuvoton.com>
>
> Hi; can you clarify what you mean with this Signed-off-by: tag?
> Generally we use those where either you're the author of the code or else 
> when you're taking somebody else's patch and including it in work you are 
> sending to the list, and it doesn't seem like either of those are the case 
> here.

> Thank you for your comments. In the email thread " [PATCH v4 00/11] 
> Implementation of NPI Mailbox and GMAC Networking Module",
> it says " Hi; I'm afraid this is going to miss the 8.2 release, because it is 
> still missing any review from Google or Nuvoton people."
>
> Is it okay to post "Acked by:" or "Reviewed by:" by someone from Nuvoton?

If you've reviewed the code and believe it to be good (i.e.,
it doesn't need any changes), then, yes, by all means please
post your Reviewed-by tag. Anybody who has done the work of
code review on a patch can send in a Reviewed-by tag to say
they've done it.

If you've reviewed the code and think there's something
that needs to be changed or that you have a question about
that, you can reply to the patch to say so.

We basically follow the same process here that the Linux
kernel does; you can read about the various tags here:
https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/v4.17/process/submitting-patches.html#using-reported-by-tested-by-reviewed-by-suggested-by-and-fixes

The meaning of "Acked-by:" is a little more disputed;
personally I use that for "I haven't reviewed this code,
but as a maintainer of the subsystem I don't object to it".

thanks
-- PMM