[Linux-stm32] [PATCH v2 1/1] spi: use dmaengine_desc_set_callback()

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On 05/11/2026 10:34, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 05, 2026 at 10:07:30AM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 05/11/2026 10:04, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>>> On Wed, Nov 04, 2026 at 11:54:56PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>> On 04/11/2026 21:41, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But sure, if we want to play such numbers game, I will be sending
>>>>>> reviews for single lines.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm not playing anything. The problem is that the patch unites the files that
>>>>> have distinct maintainers and unrelated to each other code. That's why in the
>>>>> subsystems I maintain, I almost always require to split on per-driver basis.
>>>>> Yes, exceptions are possible, but has to be quite rare.
>>>>
>>>> That's independent problem. Patch could be split, but it was not. Since
>>>> it was not, receiving end should act accordingly, e.g. when performing
>>>> incomplete review of only part of the patch, do not call that entire
>>>> patch was reviewed by giving the Rb tag, but give Ack tag.
>>>
>>> No, (partial) Rb != Ack.
>>
>> It is, because there is no partial Rb tag.
>>
>> There is partial review, but not partial Rb tag, please see exactly
>> submitting patches. It repeats the same in three separate places:
>>
>> "Acked-by.... user may not have carried out a technical review of the
>> patch,yet they may be satisfied ..."
>>
>> "Reviewed-by:, instead, indicates that the patch has been reviewed and
>> found acceptable according to the Reviewer's Statement:"
>>
>> Above important: "THE PATCH"
>>
>> It is not "the patch or its parts"
>>
>> Further:
>>
>> "I state that:
>> (a) I have carried out a technical review of *this* patch to evaluate
>> its appropriateness and readiness for inclusion into  the mainline kernel."
>>
>> And further:
>>
>> "A Reviewed-by tag is a statement of opinion that *the patch* is an"
>>
>> In three places it is THIS or THE patch. Complete (exhaustive) list of
>> options what can be reviewed to get the credit and give statement of
>> oversight.
>>
>> Statement of oversight DOES NOT include "part of the patch".
> 
> So, it means I MUST from now on REQUIRE a split before reviewing.
> Right?

Why "from now on"? The reviewer's statement of oversight is worded like
that since beginning? Also nothing stops you from reviewing parts. We
discuss the statement of oversight and its result: giving Rb tag. The Rb
tag is not output of some review, but agreement with statement of
oversight and performing what is stated there.

You can review parts, but you do not provide Rb tag.


Best regards,
Krzysztof