Hi,

> On 7 Sep 2022, at 14:21, Jan Beulich <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> On 07.09.2022 15:13, Bertrand Marquis wrote:
>> Hi Jan,
>> 
>>> On 7 Sep 2022, at 13:06, Jan Beulich <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> 
>>> On 07.09.2022 13:09, Rahul Singh wrote:
>>>> is_memory_hole was implemented for x86 and not for ARM when introduced.
>>>> Replace is_memory_hole call to pci_check_bar as function should check
>>>> if device BAR is in defined memory range. Also, add an implementation
>>>> for ARM which is required for PCI passthrough.
>>>> 
>>>> On x86, pci_check_bar will call is_memory_hole which will check if BAR
>>>> is not overlapping with any memory region defined in the memory map.
>>>> 
>>>> On ARM, pci_check_bar will go through the host bridge ranges and check
>>>> if the BAR is in the range of defined ranges.
>>>> 
>>>> Signed-off-by: Rahul Singh <[email protected]>
>>>> ---
>>>> Changes in v4:
>>>> - check "s <= e" before callback
>>>> - Add TODO comment for revisiting the function pci_check_bar() when
>>>>  ACPI PCI passthrough support is added.
>>>> - Not Added the Jan Acked-by as patch is modified.
>>> 
>>> Hmm, I don't see any change to the parts the ack covers (x86 and common),
>>> so please re-instate. I'm not in the position to ack Arm changes; things
>>> would be different for a Reviewed-by without scope restriction.
>> 
>> This might have been clear for you but your ack was not mentioning anything.
>> As the newer version is modified anyway, we remove it.
> 
> An ack can only ever apply to changes to files the person offering the
> tag is a maintainer of. Hence there's rarely a reason to scope-restrict
> it. As opposed to Reviewed-by, where someone may indeed have reviewed
> only part of a patch.

Distinction of scope handling between ack and R-b here would require to check
in the MAINTAINERS which parts are in the scope. Maybe explicitly putting the
scope with the ack could be useful here.

> 
>> But I understand from your answer that your ack is still valid for this 
>> version.
> 
> That's correct.
> 

Thanks
Bertrand

> Jan


Reply via email to