Re: [PATCH v5 2/2] xen/pci: replace call to is_memory_hole to pci_check_bar

[Julien Grall <julien@xxxxxxx>]

Hi Jan,

On 08/09/2022 13:03, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 08.09.2022 13:49, Rahul Singh wrote:
> > is_memory_hole was implemented for x86 and not for ARM when introduced.
> > Replace is_memory_hole call to pci_check_bar as function should check
> > if device BAR is in defined memory range. Also, add an implementation
> > for ARM which is required for PCI passthrough.
> >
> > On x86, pci_check_bar will call is_memory_hole which will check if BAR
> > is not overlapping with any memory region defined in the memory map.
> >
> > On ARM, pci_check_bar will go through the host bridge ranges and check
> > if the BAR is in the range of defined ranges.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Rahul Singh <rahul.singh@xxxxxxx>
> > Acked-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx> # x86, common
> FTAOD: I object to this tagging, and I did not provide the ack with
> such tags. Quoting docs/process/sending-patches.pandoc: "The
> `Acked-by:` tag can only be given by a **maintainer** of the modified
> code, and it only covers the code the maintainer is responsible for."
You are part of the REST. So technically, one could assume that your 
acked-by would also cover the Arm. I agree this would be uncommon but 
this has been used before when the more specialized maintainer was 
unresponsive.
At least with # x86, common it is clear what you are happy with.

> The doc provides for tagging here, yes, but such should only be used
> for the unusual case of an ack restricted to less than what a
> person's maintainership covers. Otherwise we'd end up seeing overly
> many tagged acks. 
I appreciate you may not like them but it helps while committing because 
you can cross-check easily whether all the files have been covered with 
the tags.
Cheers,

--
Julien Grall