Hi Quentin, On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 at 03:58, Quentin Schulz <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Liya, > > On 1/14/25 8:09 AM, [email protected] wrote: > > [You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is > > important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] > > > > From: Liya Huang <[email protected]> > > > > This patch updates the alignment of linker lists to use the > > CONFIG_LINKER_LIST_ALIGN macro instead of a hardcoded value. > > This ensures that the alignment is consistent with the configuration. > > Replace __attribute__((unused)) with __maybe_unused and > > __always_unused to eliminate the warning of checkpatch.pl. > > > > Reviewed-by: Simon Glass <[email protected]> > > This... is odd. I don't see an earlier version of that patch and your > name/mail only returns two patches on the U-Boot mailing list. I believe > Reviewed-by needs to be publicly given on the ML as they are a proof of > review by the mentioned person and is usually a trust mark for > maintainers to merge code. Here it may have been added without Simon's > consent. Now imagine Simon is not answering for a few days/weeks, the > maintainer could still believe Simon went through a proper review and > merge that patch taking that into account while no review may actually > have been conducted. This is making me uncomfortable. > > Same issue for > https://lore.kernel.org/u-boot/[email protected]/. > > I'm not saying review wasn't done properly, but its acknowledgment > should be made public by the mentioned person instead of being put into > the v1. > > Have I missed an earlier version or discussion maybe?
I was wondering the same thing, actually. I don't see anything wrong with the code in this patch, though. The docs are here: https://docs.u-boot.org/en/latest/develop/sending_patches.html Regards, Simon
