From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Chen, Tiejun" Subject: Re: [v7][PATCH 00/16] Fix RMRR Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2015 16:03:44 +0800 Message-ID: <55A76560.4090302@intel.com> References: <1436420047-25356-1-git-send-email-tiejun.chen@intel.com> <55A77F950200007800091AEC@mail.emea.novell.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <55A77F950200007800091AEC@mail.emea.novell.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Jan Beulich , George Dunlap Cc: "xen-devel@lists.xen.org" List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 2015/7/16 15:55, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>> On 10.07.15 at 16:50, wrote: >> On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 6:33 AM, Tiejun Chen wrote: >>> v7: >> >> It looks like most of the libxl/libxc patches have been acked. It >> seems to me that most of the hypervisor patches (1-3, 14-15) are >> either ready to go in or pretty close. > > Now that I looked over v8 I have to admit that if I was a tools > maintainer I wouldn't want to see some of the tools patches in > with just an ack, but without any review. I'm somewhat confused at this point. Acked-by: is often used by the maintainer of the affected code when that maintainer neither contributed to nor forwarded the patch. It is a record that the acker has at least reviewed the patch and has indicated acceptance. Does this imply this is already reviewed? Thanks Tiejun