Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 1/2] x86/setup: simplify handling of initrdidx when no initrd present

[Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

On 18.03.2020 13:12, Julien Grall wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On 18/03/2020 11:51, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 18.03.2020 12:46, David Woodhouse wrote:
>>> From: David Woodhouse <dwmw@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>
>>> Remove a ternary operator that made my brain hurt.
>>
>> My position towards this hasn't changed, just ftr.
>>
>>> Replace it with something simpler that makes it somewhat clearer that
>>> the check for initrdidx < mbi->mods_count is because larger values are
>>> what find_first_bit() will return when it doesn't find anything.
>>>
>>> Also drop the explicit check for module #0 since that would be the
>>> dom0 kernel and the corresponding bit is always clear in module_map.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: David Woodhouse <dwmw@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> Acked-by: Julien Grall <julien@xxxxxxx>
>>
>> Strictly speaking this is not a valid tag here, only R-b would be.
> 
> I can't find any rule in our code base preventing a non-maintainer to add its 
> "acked-by" tag.

I could have said "meaningful" instead of "valid": A patch is not
supposed to go in without a direct maintainer's ack, unless there's
a reason to invoke the nested maintainership rules. That's my
understanding at least.

> But if you want to play at this game, my tag is technically valid
> because "THE REST" englobes the full Xen codebase (Note the * in
> the MAINTAINERS file).

Note the nested maintainership wording in that file, which was added
pretty recently. If that wording isn't clear enough, perhaps we can
further refine it?

Jan

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel