From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ian Campbell Subject: Re: [OPW PATCH V3] tools/xl: Call init function for libxl defined datatypes Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2014 14:31:06 +0100 Message-ID: <1413811866.13796.6.camel@citrix.com> References: <5443affe.27eb420a.5386.122b@mx.google.com> <20141019125513.GH2844@zion.uk.xensource.com> <5444EB9A.9010509@eu.citrix.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Uma Sharma Cc: George Dunlap , Ian.Jackson@citrix.com, Wei Liu , xen-devel@lists.xen.org List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On Mon, 2014-10-20 at 16:59 +0530, Uma Sharma wrote: > I created a new patch for the new changes that I did afterwards. I'm not sure which of the patches I have in my queue I should be considering applying. Please can you tell me the message-ids of the set of patches which are currently intended for application. Or if you prefer you could resend the whole lot as a small series, e.g. using git send-email as described in http://wiki.xen.org/wiki/Submitting_Xen_Patches so they are all threaded together in an easy to deal with way. Thanks, Ian. > > Regards, > Uma Sharma > > On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 4:31 PM, George Dunlap > wrote: > > On 10/19/2014 02:15 PM, Uma Sharma wrote: > >> > >> Actually I looked at the patch sending documentation it stated that if > >> some changes are already acknowledged then we have to write it. > >> Should I write a new patch with all these changes ? Or I can make the > >> changes in different patches? > > > > > > "Acked-by: Wei Liu <...>" means, "Wei Liu has looked at everything in this > > patch and doesn't have any objections to it being committed." That way, Ian > > J can just take a quick look and check it in, trusing Wei's judgement. > > > > But in this case, Wei hasn't looked at the whole patch, but just half of it. > > So Ian J might end up checking in code that hasn't been reviewed. > > > > Usually, if you change the patch at all (apart from trivial things like > > whitespace or fixing clear violation of coding conventions) you have to drop > > the ack. > > > > Since the code you're adding isn't necessarily connected to the code that > > was already acked, just making a separate patch would have been the best > > idea in this case. > > > > -George > >