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 09:26:27 +0100 Message-ID: <55A786D30200007800091B45@mail.emea.novell.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> <55A767C7.60908@intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <55A767C7.60908@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 10:13, wrote: >>>>> 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? Acked-by is good enough for a patch to go in, yes. Note that I didn't make this a requirement (as I'm not the maintainer), I just said that if I was the maintainer, I would for at least some of the tools patches. And no, it is not the maintainer's role to do a review if no-one else did - that's why (s)he can ack it as an alternative, implying (s)he trusts the author without further review. > Or you still want to us add two lines explicitly, > > Reviewed-by: A > Acked-by: A We generally take Reviewed-by as a superset of Acked-by, so two tags by the same person are not needed. And (as said elsewhere recently) ack-s by non-maintainers generally don't count much. Jan