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

[Julien Grall <julien@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

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".
Cheers,

--
Julien Grall

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel