From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: George Dunlap Subject: Re: AMD/IOMMU: revert "SR56x0 Erratum 64 - Reset all head & tail pointers" Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2013 10:38:53 +0100 Message-ID: <51ADB5AD.9030704@eu.citrix.com> References: <51AC5DED02000078000DA6F4@nat28.tlf.novell.com> <51AC6540.9070101@citrix.com> <51ADB3C0.8050608@citrix.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <51ADB3C0.8050608@citrix.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: Andrew Cooper Cc: "suravee.suthikulpanit@amd.com" , Jan Beulich , xen-devel List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org 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 >> 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 >>> Yikes - I clearly didn't do a good job looking to see whether this issue >>> had already been addressed. >>> >>> Reviewed-by: Andrew Cooper >> 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