Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v5 02/16] x86/boot: remove multiboot1_header_end from symbol table

["Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

>>> On 30.08.16 at 16:27, <daniel.kiper@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 05:21:24AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> >>> On 20.08.16 at 00:43, <daniel.kiper@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > Its visibility is not needed and just pollute symbol table.
>> >
>> > Suggested-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>
>> > Signed-off-by: Daniel Kiper <daniel.kiper@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>
>> With Andrew effectively having NAK-ed v4 of this patch, I don't see
>> why - without further argumentation - this has been included again.
> 
> I have saw that discussion stopped somewhere in the middle, so, I was
> not sure what is your final decision. However, if you approve/agree
> Andrew's NAK then I think that we should use "multiboot2_header_end"
> label instead of .Lmultiboot2_header_end in patch #9 (x86: add multiboot2
> protocol support). Just to be in line with multiboot (v1) protocol header.

I don't agree with Andrew, but I also won't approve and commit a
patch he did nak. Since I'm of the opinion that I should not have
given my ack to his original change, I'm going to nak introduction
of another such bogus label.

Jan


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel