Re: [PATCH v3 02/18] x86/mm: purge unneeded destroy_perdomain_mapping()

[George Dunlap <gwd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, Oct 7, 2026 at 3:24 PM Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 07.10.2026 16:06, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> > Otherwise LGTM, but I don't think I can RB or Ack it being also the
> > author.
>
> You can, as per earlier discussions of the topic. George's S-o-b effectively
> implies an R-b on the code he's taken unchanged. Your R-b then covers the
> parts he has changed (and the overall result). That fulfills the 2-pairs-of-
> eyes requirement.

Yes -- relevant section from MAINTAINERS quoted below.  So basically,
the tags should look like:

Signed-off-by: Roger Pau Monné <roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx>
Assisted-by: Claude Code:claude-fable-5
Signed-off-by: George Dunlap <gwd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reviewed-by: Roger Pau Monné <roger.pau@xxxxxxx>

OK to add your R-b, Roger, pending comment tweaks?

 -Georeg

8<---

In the case where two people collaborate on a patch, at least one of
whom is a maintainer -- typically where one maintainer will do an
early version of the patch, and another maintainer will pick it up and
revise it -- there should be two Signed-off-by's and one Acked-by or
Reviewed-by; with the maintainer who did the most recent change
sending the patch, and an Acked-by or Reviewed-by coming from the
maintainer who did not most recently edit the patch.  This satisfies
the requirement #2 because a) the Signed-off-by of the sender approves
the final version of the patch; including all parts of the patch that
the sender did not write b) the Reviewed-by approves the final version
of the patch, including all patches that the reviewer did not write.
Thus all code in the patch has been approved by someone who did not
write it.