From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Jan Beulich" Subject: Re: [v7][PATCH 00/16] Fix RMRR Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2015 09:08:14 +0100 Message-ID: <55A7828E0200007800091B2A@mail.emea.novell.com> References: <1436420047-25356-1-git-send-email-tiejun.chen@intel.com> <55A77F950200007800091AEC@mail.emea.novell.com> <55A76560.4090302@intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <55A76560.4090302@intel.com> Content-Disposition: inline List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Tiejun Chen Cc: George Dunlap , "xen-devel@lists.xen.org" List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org >>> On 16.07.15 at 10:03, wrote: > 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? No, that would be expressed by Reviewed-by. Acked-by merely means no objection by the maintainer for the change to go in. Jan