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

[Andy Shevchenko]

On Fri, Nov 06, 2026 at 08:20:33AM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> 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.

No, I'm not going to review something that I may not put Rb tag on.
I can NAK or ignore (or Ack without viewing, but it equals to ignore to me).

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko