----- 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 8:11:55 AM
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/8] symbols/ppc: re-number intermediate files
> 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.
