Common understanding of word "Reviewer" is: a person performing a review
work [1]. Tools are not persons, thus cannot be reviewers in this term.
Also tools cannot make statements ("A Reviewed-by tag is a statement of
opinion"), since making a statement needs some sort of conscious mind.

Our docs already clearly mark that "Reviewed-by" must come from a
person:

 - "By offering my Reviewed-by: tag, I state that:"

   Usage of first person "I" and word "state"

 - "A Reviewed-by tag is *a statement of opinion* that the patch is an
    appropriate modification of the kernel without any remaining serious"

   Only a person can make a statement of opinion.

 - "Any interested reviewer (who has done the work) can offer a
   Reviewed-by"

   A person can offer a tag thus above does not grant the tool
   permission to offer a tag.

However this is not enough and apparently English is not that precise,
so let's clarify that only a person can state the "Reviewer's statement
of oversight".

Link: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/reviewer [1]
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Cc: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@kernel.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: David Hildenbrand <david@kernel.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@oss.qualcomm.com>

---

I find it silly to need to describe English, but it seems it is needed.

https://lore.kernel.org/all/fd3b2ca7-4d64-4c4b-98a3-7d3285fa6826@roeck-us.net/
---
 Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst | 8 ++++----
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst b/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst
index d7290e208e72..a989de43f3db 100644
--- a/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst
+++ b/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst
@@ -581,10 +581,10 @@ By offering my Reviewed-by: tag, I state that:
 
 A Reviewed-by tag is a statement of opinion that the patch is an
 appropriate modification of the kernel without any remaining serious
-technical issues.  Any interested reviewer (who has done the work) can
-offer a Reviewed-by tag for a patch.  This tag serves to give credit to
-reviewers and to inform maintainers of the degree of review which has been
-done on the patch.  Reviewed-by: tags, when supplied by reviewers known to
+technical issues.  Any interested reviewer (who has done the work and is a
+person) can offer a Reviewed-by tag for a patch.  This tag serves to give
+credit to reviewers and to inform maintainers of the degree of review which has
+been done on the patch.  Reviewed-by: tags, when supplied by reviewers known to
 understand the subject area and to perform thorough reviews, will normally
 increase the likelihood of your patch getting into the kernel.
 
-- 
2.51.0

On 5/16/26 14:38, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> Common understanding of word "Reviewer" is: a person performing a review
> work [1]. Tools are not persons, thus cannot be reviewers in this term.
> Also tools cannot make statements ("A Reviewed-by tag is a statement of
> opinion"), since making a statement needs some sort of conscious mind.
> 
> Our docs already clearly mark that "Reviewed-by" must come from a
> person:
> 
>  - "By offering my Reviewed-by: tag, I state that:"
> 
>    Usage of first person "I" and word "state"
> 
>  - "A Reviewed-by tag is *a statement of opinion* that the patch is an
>     appropriate modification of the kernel without any remaining serious"
> 
>    Only a person can make a statement of opinion.
> 
>  - "Any interested reviewer (who has done the work) can offer a
>    Reviewed-by"
> 
>    A person can offer a tag thus above does not grant the tool
>    permission to offer a tag.
> 
> However this is not enough and apparently English is not that precise,
> so let's clarify that only a person can state the "Reviewer's statement
> of oversight".
> 
> Link: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/reviewer [1]
> Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
> Cc: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@kernel.org>
> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
> Cc: David Hildenbrand <david@kernel.org>
> Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
> Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@oss.qualcomm.com>

I agree with the intent that the tag is for people (whether they use a tool
or not to help them). We also don't put "Tested-by: kernel test robot" or
syzkaller on every commit that they test and find no bugs. Review is also
not just about absence of bugs, but agreeing with the larger design and
whether the change makes sense to do in the first place.

So whether that's achieved with this particular wording or differently,

Acked-by: Vlastimil Babka (SUSE) <vbabka@kernel.org>

> 
> ---
> 
> I find it silly to need to describe English, but it seems it is needed.
> 
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/fd3b2ca7-4d64-4c4b-98a3-7d3285fa6826@roeck-us.net/
> ---
>  Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst | 8 ++++----
>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst b/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst
> index d7290e208e72..a989de43f3db 100644
> --- a/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst
> +++ b/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst
> @@ -581,10 +581,10 @@ By offering my Reviewed-by: tag, I state that:
>  
>  A Reviewed-by tag is a statement of opinion that the patch is an
>  appropriate modification of the kernel without any remaining serious
> -technical issues.  Any interested reviewer (who has done the work) can
> -offer a Reviewed-by tag for a patch.  This tag serves to give credit to
> -reviewers and to inform maintainers of the degree of review which has been
> -done on the patch.  Reviewed-by: tags, when supplied by reviewers known to
> +technical issues.  Any interested reviewer (who has done the work and is a
> +person) can offer a Reviewed-by tag for a patch.  This tag serves to give
> +credit to reviewers and to inform maintainers of the degree of review which has
> +been done on the patch.  Reviewed-by: tags, when supplied by reviewers known to
>  understand the subject area and to perform thorough reviews, will normally
>  increase the likelihood of your patch getting into the kernel.
>

On 5/16/26 7:39 AM, Vlastimil Babka (SUSE) wrote:
> On 5/16/26 14:38, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> Common understanding of word "Reviewer" is: a person performing a review
>> work [1]. Tools are not persons, thus cannot be reviewers in this term.
>> Also tools cannot make statements ("A Reviewed-by tag is a statement of
>> opinion"), since making a statement needs some sort of conscious mind.
>>
>> Our docs already clearly mark that "Reviewed-by" must come from a
>> person:
>>
>>  - "By offering my Reviewed-by: tag, I state that:"
>>
>>    Usage of first person "I" and word "state"
>>
>>  - "A Reviewed-by tag is *a statement of opinion* that the patch is an
>>     appropriate modification of the kernel without any remaining serious"
>>
>>    Only a person can make a statement of opinion.
>>
>>  - "Any interested reviewer (who has done the work) can offer a
>>    Reviewed-by"
>>
>>    A person can offer a tag thus above does not grant the tool
>>    permission to offer a tag.
>>
>> However this is not enough and apparently English is not that precise,
>> so let's clarify that only a person can state the "Reviewer's statement
>> of oversight".
>>
>> Link: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/reviewer [1]
>> Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
>> Cc: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@kernel.org>
>> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
>> Cc: David Hildenbrand <david@kernel.org>
>> Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
>> Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@oss.qualcomm.com>
> 
> I agree with the intent that the tag is for people (whether they use a tool
> or not to help them). We also don't put "Tested-by: kernel test robot" or
> syzkaller on every commit that they test and find no bugs. Review is also
> not just about absence of bugs, but agreeing with the larger design and
> whether the change makes sense to do in the first place.

Ack that also.

> So whether that's achieved with this particular wording or differently,
> 
> Acked-by: Vlastimil Babka (SUSE) <vbabka@kernel.org>

Acked-by: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org>
Thanks.

> 
>>
>> ---
>>
>> I find it silly to need to describe English, but it seems it is needed.
>>
>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/fd3b2ca7-4d64-4c4b-98a3-7d3285fa6826@roeck-us.net/
>> ---
>>  Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst | 8 ++++----
>>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst b/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst
>> index d7290e208e72..a989de43f3db 100644
>> --- a/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst
>> +++ b/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst
>> @@ -581,10 +581,10 @@ By offering my Reviewed-by: tag, I state that:
>>  
>>  A Reviewed-by tag is a statement of opinion that the patch is an
>>  appropriate modification of the kernel without any remaining serious
>> -technical issues.  Any interested reviewer (who has done the work) can
>> -offer a Reviewed-by tag for a patch.  This tag serves to give credit to
>> -reviewers and to inform maintainers of the degree of review which has been
>> -done on the patch.  Reviewed-by: tags, when supplied by reviewers known to
>> +technical issues.  Any interested reviewer (who has done the work and is a
>> +person) can offer a Reviewed-by tag for a patch.  This tag serves to give
>> +credit to reviewers and to inform maintainers of the degree of review which has
>> +been done on the patch.  Reviewed-by: tags, when supplied by reviewers known to
>>  understand the subject area and to perform thorough reviews, will normally
>>  increase the likelihood of your patch getting into the kernel.
>>  
> 
> 

-- 
~Randy

On Sat, May 16, 2026 at 04:39:45PM +0200, Vlastimil Babka (SUSE) wrote:
> On 5/16/26 14:38, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:

> > Our docs already clearly mark that "Reviewed-by" must come from a
> > person:

...

> > However this is not enough and apparently English is not that precise,
> > so let's clarify that only a person can state the "Reviewer's statement
> > of oversight".

> I agree with the intent that the tag is for people (whether they use a tool
> or not to help them). We also don't put "Tested-by: kernel test robot" or
> syzkaller on every commit that they test and find no bugs. Review is also
> not just about absence of bugs, but agreeing with the larger design and
> whether the change makes sense to do in the first place.

Reviewed-by: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>

On 5/16/26 16:39, Vlastimil Babka (SUSE) wrote:
> On 5/16/26 14:38, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> Common understanding of word "Reviewer" is: a person performing a review
>> work [1]. Tools are not persons, thus cannot be reviewers in this term.
>> Also tools cannot make statements ("A Reviewed-by tag is a statement of
>> opinion"), since making a statement needs some sort of conscious mind.
>>
>> Our docs already clearly mark that "Reviewed-by" must come from a
>> person:
>>
>>  - "By offering my Reviewed-by: tag, I state that:"
>>
>>    Usage of first person "I" and word "state"
>>
>>  - "A Reviewed-by tag is *a statement of opinion* that the patch is an
>>     appropriate modification of the kernel without any remaining serious"
>>
>>    Only a person can make a statement of opinion.
>>
>>  - "Any interested reviewer (who has done the work) can offer a
>>    Reviewed-by"
>>
>>    A person can offer a tag thus above does not grant the tool
>>    permission to offer a tag.
>>
>> However this is not enough and apparently English is not that precise,
>> so let's clarify that only a person can state the "Reviewer's statement
>> of oversight".
>>
>> Link: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/reviewer [1]
>> Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
>> Cc: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@kernel.org>
>> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
>> Cc: David Hildenbrand <david@kernel.org>
>> Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
>> Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@oss.qualcomm.com>
> 
> I agree with the intent that the tag is for people (whether they use a tool
> or not to help them). We also don't put "Tested-by: kernel test robot" or
> syzkaller on every commit that they test and find no bugs. Review is also
> not just about absence of bugs, but agreeing with the larger design and
> whether the change makes sense to do in the first place.

I'd assume that SOB/RB/ACK would all be real persons, not tools.

For SOB we term it as "known identity". I'd assume that a tool is not an
identity ...

So maybe we should also talk about "know identity" here?

In any case, bots providing RB tags is stupid

Acked-by: David Hildenbrand (Arm) <david@kernel.org>
-- 
Cheers,

David

On 18/05/2026 10:31, David Hildenbrand (Arm) wrote:
> On 5/16/26 16:39, Vlastimil Babka (SUSE) wrote:
>> On 5/16/26 14:38, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>> Common understanding of word "Reviewer" is: a person performing a review
>>> work [1]. Tools are not persons, thus cannot be reviewers in this term.
>>> Also tools cannot make statements ("A Reviewed-by tag is a statement of
>>> opinion"), since making a statement needs some sort of conscious mind.
>>>
>>> Our docs already clearly mark that "Reviewed-by" must come from a
>>> person:
>>>
>>>  - "By offering my Reviewed-by: tag, I state that:"
>>>
>>>    Usage of first person "I" and word "state"
>>>
>>>  - "A Reviewed-by tag is *a statement of opinion* that the patch is an
>>>     appropriate modification of the kernel without any remaining serious"
>>>
>>>    Only a person can make a statement of opinion.
>>>
>>>  - "Any interested reviewer (who has done the work) can offer a
>>>    Reviewed-by"
>>>
>>>    A person can offer a tag thus above does not grant the tool
>>>    permission to offer a tag.
>>>
>>> However this is not enough and apparently English is not that precise,
>>> so let's clarify that only a person can state the "Reviewer's statement
>>> of oversight".
>>>
>>> Link: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/reviewer [1]
>>> Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
>>> Cc: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@kernel.org>
>>> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
>>> Cc: David Hildenbrand <david@kernel.org>
>>> Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
>>> Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@oss.qualcomm.com>
>>
>> I agree with the intent that the tag is for people (whether they use a tool
>> or not to help them). We also don't put "Tested-by: kernel test robot" or
>> syzkaller on every commit that they test and find no bugs. Review is also
>> not just about absence of bugs, but agreeing with the larger design and
>> whether the change makes sense to do in the first place.
> 
> I'd assume that SOB/RB/ACK would all be real persons, not tools.
> 
> For SOB we term it as "known identity". I'd assume that a tool is not an
> identity ...
> 
> So maybe we should also talk about "know identity" here?

I think this - s/person/known identity/ - is a good idea. We should not
have aliases and anonymous reviews because these are not accountable.

I got few acks already and I plan to retain them in v2, so please let me
know if you disagree with keeping Ack/Reviewed-by while replacing this
to known identity.



Best regards,
Krzysztof

On Sat, May 16, 2026 at 04:39:45PM +0200, Vlastimil Babka (SUSE) wrote:
> On 5/16/26 14:38, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> > Common understanding of word "Reviewer" is: a person performing a review
> > work [1]. Tools are not persons, thus cannot be reviewers in this term.
> > Also tools cannot make statements ("A Reviewed-by tag is a statement of
> > opinion"), since making a statement needs some sort of conscious mind.
> > 
> > Our docs already clearly mark that "Reviewed-by" must come from a
> > person:
> > 
> >  - "By offering my Reviewed-by: tag, I state that:"
> > 
> >    Usage of first person "I" and word "state"
> > 
> >  - "A Reviewed-by tag is *a statement of opinion* that the patch is an
> >     appropriate modification of the kernel without any remaining serious"
> > 
> >    Only a person can make a statement of opinion.
> > 
> >  - "Any interested reviewer (who has done the work) can offer a
> >    Reviewed-by"
> > 
> >    A person can offer a tag thus above does not grant the tool
> >    permission to offer a tag.
> > 
> > However this is not enough and apparently English is not that precise,
> > so let's clarify that only a person can state the "Reviewer's statement
> > of oversight".
> > 
> > Link: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/reviewer [1]
> > Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
> > Cc: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@kernel.org>
> > Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
> > Cc: David Hildenbrand <david@kernel.org>
> > Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
> > Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@oss.qualcomm.com>
> 
> I agree with the intent that the tag is for people (whether they use a tool
> or not to help them). We also don't put "Tested-by: kernel test robot" or
> syzkaller on every commit that they test and find no bugs. Review is also
> not just about absence of bugs, but agreeing with the larger design and
> whether the change makes sense to do in the first place.
> 
> So whether that's achieved with this particular wording or differently,
> 
> Acked-by: Vlastimil Babka (SUSE) <vbabka@kernel.org>

Reviewed-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>