From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Chen, Tiejun" Subject: Re: [v11][PATCH 11/16] tools/libxl: detect and avoid conflicts with RDM Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2015 16:52:20 +0800 Message-ID: <55AF59C4.7090806@intel.com> References: <1437528607-19315-1-git-send-email-tiejun.chen@intel.com> <1437528607-19315-12-git-send-email-tiejun.chen@intel.com> <55AF70300200007800093DFD@prv-mh.provo.novell.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <55AF70300200007800093DFD@prv-mh.provo.novell.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Jan Beulich Cc: Ian Jackson , xen-devel@lists.xen.org, Wei Liu , Ian Campbell , Stefano Stabellini List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 2015/7/22 16:28, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>> On 22.07.15 at 03:30, wrote: >> CC: Ian Jackson >> CC: Stefano Stabellini >> CC: Ian Campbell >> CC: Wei Liu >> Acked-by: Wei Liu >> Signed-off-by: Tiejun Chen >> Reviewed-by: Kevin Tian >> --- >> v11: >> >> * Use GCNEW_ARRAY to replace libxl__malloc() >> >> * #define pfn_to_paddrk is missing safety () around x, and >> move this into libxl_internal.h >> >> * Rename set_rdm_entries() to add_rdm_entry() and put the >> increment at the end so that the assignments are >> to ->rdms[d_config->num_rdms]. >> >> * "Simply make it so that if there are any rdms specified >> in the domain config, they are used instead of the >> automatically gathered information (from strategy and >> devices)." So just return if d_config->rmds is valid. >> >> * Shorten some code comments. > > I think it is not the first time that we're pointing out to you that > when you make not just cosmetic changes, review and ack tags > should be dropped. I don't recall this sort of requirement was mentioned. Instead, this is new to me. So where can I found this warning you said previously? Furthermore, you ask me to drop Reviewed-by/Acked-by in this revision, what's next? Just to this example, No.1 revision: Acked-by: Wei Liu Reviewed-by: Kevin Tian No.2 revision: I addressed some comments raised by Jackson. But you mean Reviewed-by/Acked-by should be dropped. No.3 revision: I assume Jackson Ack or Review to this so I should leave one line like this, Reviewed-by: Ian Jackson without two previous Acked-by/Reviewed-by, right? So looks like the latter always override the former, right? And I also can't understand why we should drop Reviewed-by/Acked-by from other guys. And, all new comments I addressed don't conflict with our previous revision so why? Thanks Tiejun