Re: [PATCH 3/8] symbols/ppc: re-number intermediate files

[Timothy Pearson <tpearson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jan Beulich" <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>
> To: "Timothy Pearson" <tpearson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: "xen-devel" <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Andrew Cooper" 
> <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>, "Julien Grall"
> <julien@xxxxxxx>, "Stefano Stabellini" <sstabellini@xxxxxxxxxx>, "Anthony 
> PERARD" <anthony.perard@xxxxxxxxxx>, "Michal
> Orzel" <michal.orzel@xxxxxxx>, "Roger Pau Monné" <roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2025 8:11:55 AM
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/8] symbols/ppc: re-number intermediate files

> On 26.11.2025 15:07, Timothy Pearson wrote:
>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Jan Beulich" <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>
>>> To: "xen-devel" <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> 
>>> In preparation to do away with symbols-dummy, re-number the assembly and
>>> object files used, for the numbers to match the next passes real output.
>>> This is to make 0 available to use for what now is handled by
>>> symbols-dummy.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>
>> 
>> Looks good to me.
>> 
>> Acked-by: Timothy Pearson <tpearson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> Thanks, but for clarification: This doesn't mean very much unless provided
> by a maintainer (M: in ./MAINTAINERS). As a reviewer, you'd use Reviewed-by:
> to fulfill the purpose set forth in the textual part of that file. Provided
> of course you actually did a review.

Understood, and yes, the patches were in fact reviewed.  I will use the 
alternate string in the future.