回复： [PATCH] linker_lists: Update the alignment using CONFIG_LINKER_LIST_ALIGN

[黄利亚]

Sorry for the confusion and disruption. 
I haven't submitted patches this way before, 
and my English is not very good. 
I was conducted according to the steps 
in the https://docs.u-boot.org/en/latest/develop/patman.html operation.


Can you tell me what else I need to do? 
What I know so far is :
1. I should use another email address; 
2. Seems like i shouldn't send patches directly to this list?
 And it's only submitted to the reviewer for review and then submitted by the reviewer?






------------------ 原始邮件 ------------------
发件人:                                                                                                                        "Quentin Schulz"                                                                                    <quentin.schulz at cherry.de>;
发送时间: 2025年1月15日(星期三) 晚上6:58
收件人: "黄利亚"<1425075683 at qq.com>;"u-boot"<u-boot at lists.denx.de>;
抄送: "Simon Glass"<sjg at chromium.org>;"Tom Rini"<trini at konsulko.com>;
主题: Re: [PATCH] linker_lists: Update the alignment using CONFIG_LINKER_LIST_ALIGN



Hi Liya,

On 1/14/25 8:09 AM, 1425075683 at qq.com wrote:
> [You don't often get email from 1425075683 at qq.com. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
> 
> From: Liya Huang <1425075683 at qq.com>
> 
> 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 <sjg at chromium.org>

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/tencent_CCE8303926957C427AAE06F9D91282458109@qq.com/.

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?

Cheers,
Quentin