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 16:13:59 +0800 Message-ID: <55A767C7.60908@intel.com> References: <1436420047-25356-1-git-send-email-tiejun.chen@intel.com> <55A77F950200007800091AEC@mail.emea.novell.com> <55A76560.4090302@intel.com> <55A7828E0200007800091B2A@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: <55A7828E0200007800091B2A@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 Cc: George Dunlap , "xen-devel@lists.xen.org" List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org >>>> 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? > > No, that would be expressed by Reviewed-by. Acked-by merely > means no objection by the maintainer for the change to go in. > Sorry I'm trying to dig into this. If nobody would like to take a look at this, so isn't this the associated maintainer's responsibility to review finally? In this case isn't Acked-by fine enough? Or you still want to us add two lines explicitly, Reviewed-by: A Acked-by: A Thanks Tiejun