Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] xen/x86: merge 2 hvm_event_... functions into 1

From: Corneliu ZUZU <czuzu@bitdefender.com>
To: Razvan Cojocaru <rcojocaru@bitdefender.com>, xen-devel@lists.xen.org
Cc: Kevin Tian <kevin.tian@intel.com>,
	Tamas K Lengyel <tamas@tklengyel.com>, Keir Fraser <keir@xen.org>,
	Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>,
	Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>,
	Jun Nakajima <jun.nakajima@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] xen/x86: merge 2 hvm_event_... functions into 1
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2016 19:40:33 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <56C20D91.9010305@bitdefender.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <56C18CAE.9050103@bitdefender.com>

On 2/15/2016 10:30 AM, Razvan Cojocaru wrote:
> On 02/15/2016 08:35 AM, Corneliu ZUZU wrote:
>> This patch merges almost identical functions hvm_event_int3 and
>> hvm_event_single_step into a single function called hvm_event_breakpoint.
>> Also fixes event.c file header comment in the process.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Corneliu ZUZU <czuzu@bitdefender.com>
>> ---
>>   xen/arch/x86/hvm/event.c        | 108 +++++++++++++++++++---------------------
>>   xen/arch/x86/hvm/vmx/vmx.c      |  15 +++---
>>   xen/include/asm-x86/hvm/event.h |  11 ++--
>>   3 files changed, 67 insertions(+), 67 deletions(-)
> Looks good to me.
>
> Acked-by: Razvan Cojocaru <rcojocaru@bitdefender.com>
>
>
> Thanks,
> Razvan
>

I forgot to ask: when getting an Acked-By response, should I include 
that patch in the next patch-series
or ommit it? I've done that w/ the first patch in the last patch-series, 
but IDK if I was correct to do so.

Thanks,
Corneliu.