[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 1/2] x86/setup: simplify handling of initrdidx when no initrd present


On 18/03/2020 11:51, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 18.03.2020 12:46, David Woodhouse wrote:
From: David Woodhouse <dwmw@xxxxxxxxxxxx>

Remove a ternary operator that made my brain hurt.

My position towards this hasn't changed, just ftr.

Replace it with something simpler that makes it somewhat clearer that
the check for initrdidx < mbi->mods_count is because larger values are
what find_first_bit() will return when it doesn't find anything.

Also drop the explicit check for module #0 since that would be the
dom0 kernel and the corresponding bit is always clear in module_map.

Signed-off-by: David Woodhouse <dwmw@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Acked-by: Julien Grall <julien@xxxxxxx>

Strictly speaking this is not a valid tag here, only R-b would be.

I can't find any rule in our code base preventing a non-maintainer to add its "acked-by" tag.

But if you want to play at this game, my tag is technically valid because "THE REST" englobes the full Xen codebase (Note the * in the MAINTAINERS file). We happen to not be CCed by scripts/get_maintainers.pl because *you* were not happy to be spammed... So we modified the scripts.

In this particular case, I stand with the acked-by because I am ready to take the blame if something goes wrong with the patch. Such meaning is is not conveyed with "reviewed-by".


Julien Grall

Xen-devel mailing list



Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our
servers 24x7x365 and backed by RackSpace's Fanatical Support®.