From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@citrix.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/5] compat: enforce distinguishable file
 names in symbol table
Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2015 15:42:28 +0000
Message-ID: <1446565348.16178.24.camel@citrix.com>
References: <562E12E802000078000AE785@prv-mh.provo.novell.com>
	<562E21AF02000078000AE8A3@prv-mh.provo.novell.com>
	<1446477627.3088.72.camel@citrix.com>
	<5637995102000078000B0EFB@prv-mh.provo.novell.com>
	<1446553365.10390.9.camel@citrix.com>
	<5638BBA402000078000B144F@prv-mh.provo.novell.com>
	<1446557966.10390.30.camel@citrix.com>
	<5638E14A02000078000B1593@prv-mh.provo.novell.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org>
Received: from mail6.bemta5.messagelabs.com ([195.245.231.135])
	by lists.xen.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72)
	(envelope-from <prvs=74295b113=Ian.Campbell@citrix.com>)
	id 1ZtdjK-0003pG-GG
	for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Tue, 03 Nov 2015 15:42:38 +0000
In-Reply-To: <5638E14A02000078000B1593@prv-mh.provo.novell.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xen.org>
List-Help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
To: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com>
Cc: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>, Tim Deegan <tim@xen.org>, Keir Fraser <keir@xen.org>, Ian Jackson <Ian.Jackson@eu.citrix.com>, xen-devel <xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org>
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

On Tue, 2015-11-03 at 08:31 -0700, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > > > On 03.11.15 at 14:39, <ian.campbell@citrix.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, 2015-11-03 at 05:50 -0700, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > > That's certainly an option on x86 too, the more that the x86_64/
> > > subtree is a remnant of x86_32 days only anyway. Just that doing
> > > this will mean quite a bit more work (not the least because, to be
> > > done properly, I think it implies merging files from x86_64/ into
> > > their
> > > [formerly] shared files where sensible).
> > 
> > FWIW IMHO compiling arch/x86/x86_64/*.c from arch/x86/Makefile now and
> > then
> > tackling the merging as and when it makes sense would be fine.
> 
> Great. It's on my list to do this merge (in steps) anyway. So does
> this mean I can go ahead and commit both this and patch 1, i.e.
> at least kind-of-an-ack?

Acked-by: Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@citrix.com>

with the provisos regarding common code and not setting a precedent for ARM
I mentioned before (which doesn't need reflecting in the ack in the commit
message, I'll just remember it)

Ian.