----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jan Beulich" <[email protected]> > To: "Timothy Pearson" <[email protected]> > Cc: "xen-devel" <[email protected]>, "Andrew Cooper" > <[email protected]>, "Julien Grall" > <[email protected]>, "Stefano Stabellini" <[email protected]>, "Anthony > PERARD" <[email protected]>, "Michal > Orzel" <[email protected]>, "Roger Pau Monné" <[email protected]> > Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2025 8:21:31 AM > Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/8] symbols/ppc: re-number intermediate files
> On 26.11.2025 15:14, Timothy Pearson wrote: >> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: "Jan Beulich" <[email protected]> >>> To: "Timothy Pearson" <[email protected]> >> >>> On 26.11.2025 15:07, Timothy Pearson wrote: >>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>>> From: "Jan Beulich" <[email protected]> >>>>> To: "xen-devel" <[email protected]> >>>> >>>>> In preparation to do away with symbols-dummy, re-number the assembly and >>>>> object files used, for the numbers to match the next passes real output. >>>>> This is to make 0 available to use for what now is handled by >>>>> symbols-dummy. >>>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <[email protected]> >>>> >>>> Looks good to me. >>>> >>>> Acked-by: Timothy Pearson <[email protected]> >>> >>> Thanks, but for clarification: This doesn't mean very much unless provided >>> by a maintainer (M: in ./MAINTAINERS). As a reviewer, you'd use Reviewed-by: >>> to fulfill the purpose set forth in the textual part of that file. Provided >>> of course you actually did a review. >> >> Understood, and yes, the patches were in fact reviewed. I will use the >> alternate string in the future. > > Then still for the ones here: May I flip them to R-b, meaning the patches can > in fact go in without anyone else's (i.e. a REST maintainer's) ack? > > Jan Yes, for both the [3/8] and [4/8] patches which I have personally reviewed.
