[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 14:29, Julien Grall wrote:
> On 18/03/2020 13:20, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 18.03.2020 13:12, Julien Grall wrote:
>>> 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.
>> I could have said "meaningful" instead of "valid": A patch is not
>> supposed to go in without a direct maintainer's ack, unless there's
>> a reason to invoke the nested maintainership rules. That's my
>> understanding at least.
> I still don't see why you are not happy with my tag here
> the more I don't think David or I ever claimed my acked-by
> was sufficient for the patch to be merged.

I didn't say I'm not happy with it. I merely tried to state a
fact, for the avoidance of doubt.

> With my tag I acknowledged the patch. I could also have
> ignored it and you would have complained that nobody help
> you reviewing patches...

An R-b would have achieved the same effect.


Xen-devel mailing list



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