On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 12:35:33PM +1100, Tobin C. Harding wrote:

If a reviewer makes a suggestion and one intends on making the change as suggested is it required (normal protocol) to reply stating that the you understand their suggestion and intend on implementing it or is this just noise. Should one simply re send the next version of the patch?

If you were a reviewer, which would you like to see happen if you took the time to review someone else's work?

Continuing on this theme, should one add a Suggested-by: tag in the previous situation. Some where Documentation/process it states that no tag except the CC tag should be added without the authority of the person being named?

Suggested-by: is usually for the whole idea of the patch itself, not for revisions within a patch. good luck! greg k-h

On Tue, 21 Feb 2017 12:35:33 +1100, "Tobin C. Harding" said:

If a reviewer makes a suggestion and one intends on making the change as suggested is it required (normal protocol) to reply stating that the you understand their suggestion and intend on implementing it or is this just noise. Should one simply re send the next version of the patch?

If it's something trivial, like changing a variable name to something better, or clarifying a comment block, just cc: the reviewer on the next revision of the patch. If the reviewer suggest a major overhaul ("the goal looks good, but you should probably use this other API" or similar), and it's something that will take a bit of time, you should probably send a quick "Yes, I've put that on my to-do list" note so the reviewer knows you read their note. And of course, if you're not sure or disagree with the reviewer, that's the time to start bouncing polite e-mails back and forth until you're on the same page.