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
