Re: [PATCH v6 01/24] tick/nohz: Move tick_nohz_full_mask declaration outside the #ifdef

[Fenghua Yu]

Hi, Peter and James,

On 9/14/23 10:21, James Morse wrote:
> tick_nohz_full_mask lists the CPUs that are nohz_full. This is only
> needed when CONFIG_NO_HZ_FULL is defined. tick_nohz_full_cpu() allows
> a specific CPU to be tested against the mask, and evaluates to false
> when CONFIG_NO_HZ_FULL is not defined.
>
> The resctrl code needs to pick a CPU to run some work on, a new helper
> prefers housekeeping CPUs by examining the tick_nohz_full_mask. Hiding
> the declaration behind #ifdef CONFIG_NO_HZ_FULL forces all the users to
> be behind an ifdef too.
>
> Move the tick_nohz_full_mask declaration, this lets callers drop the
> ifdef, and guard access to tick_nohz_full_mask with IS_ENABLED() or
> something like tick_nohz_full_cpu().
>
> The definition does not need to be moved as any callers should be
> removed at compile time unless CONFIG_NO_HZ_FULL is defined.
>
> CC: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Reviewed-by: Shaopeng Tan <tan.shaopeng@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Tested-by: Shaopeng Tan <tan.shaopeng@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Tested-By: Peter Newman <peternewman@xxxxxxxxxx>

checkpatch.pl reports warning:
WARNING: 'Tested-by:' is the preferred signature form
#27:
Tested-By: Peter Newman <peternewman@xxxxxxxxxx>

The same warning is reported on all following patches in this series.

According to Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst, "Tested-by" 
(instead of "Tested-By") is used.

Could you please fix the warnings?

Thanks.

-Fenghua