Re: AMD/IOMMU: revert "SR56x0 Erratum 64 - Reset all head & tail pointers"

[George Dunlap <george.dunlap@eu.citrix.com>]

On 06/04/2013 10:30 AM, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 04/06/13 10:24, George Dunlap wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 10:43 AM, Andrew Cooper
>> <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com> wrote:
>>> On 03/06/13 08:12, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> The code this patch added is redundant with already present code in
>>>> set_iommu_{command_buffer,{event,ppr}_log}_control(). Just switch those
>>>> ones from using writel() to writeq() for consistency.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
>>> Yikes - I clearly didn't do a good job looking to see whether this issue
>>> had already been addressed.
>>>
>>> Reviewed-by: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>
>> You couldn't make this an "Acked-by", could you?
>>
>>   -George
>
> I could do that, but as I am not a maintainer, I was under the
> impression that reviewed-by was my preferred way of saying "I think this
> is sensible".

In this context, I would read "Acked-by" as "I agree that this should go 
in", or at very least, "I am happy for this to go in"; whereas to me 
"Reviewed-by" to me sounds like, "I took a close look at the code and 
didn't see anything wrong, but otherwise have no opinion on the matter."

But maybe I'm behind the times here. :-)

  -George