From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: George Dunlap Subject: Re: [OPW PATCH V3] tools/xl: Call init function for libxl defined datatypes Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2014 12:01:46 +0100 Message-ID: <5444EB9A.9010509@eu.citrix.com> References: <5443affe.27eb420a.5386.122b@mx.google.com> <20141019125513.GH2844@zion.uk.xensource.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" 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 , Wei Liu Cc: Ian.Jackson@citrix.com, Ian Campbell , xen-devel@lists.xen.org List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org 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