Re: [v10][PATCH 06/16] hvmloader/pci: Try to avoid placing BARs in RMRRs

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

On 07/21/2015 01:53 AM, Chen, Tiejun wrote:
>>> Okay, I regenerate this patch online. And I just hope its good to be
>>> acked here:
>>
>> Provided it also works,
>> Reviewed-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
>>
> 
> Why is this marked as Acked-by this time? The same question is raised to
> another hvmloader patch as well.
> 
> This really makes me confused since you're the key maintainer associated
> to this, and I remember you also gave me Acked-by to the first hvmloader
> patch. I know this solution is always argued, so does this mean you
> still don't think this is good to go in the tree in your perspective, so
> you want to leave this Acked-by to other maintainers, right?
> 
> And what about patch #7, hvmloader/e820: construct guest e820 table, is
> this also not fine to you?

Acked-by means basically, "I have no objections to this going in."  For
a patch to be committed it needs at least one maintainer to Ack it, and
(in general) no one else who objects.  (A maintainer  can override
someone's objection.)  But it doesn't mean that Jan has done a thorough
review, or even that he's read it (he may Ack it just based on other
people's Reviewed-by's).

Reviewed-by means that he *has* done a thorough technical review, and he
thinks it's ready to go in.  In particular, Reviewed-by means "While
there may be things that could be improved with this submission, I
believe that it is, at this time, (1) a worthwhile modification, and (2)
free of known issues which would argue against its inclusion." [1]

So Reviewed-by is stronger than Acked-by.

 -George

[1] Section 13, https://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/SubmittingPatches

 -George