From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from lists.xenproject.org (lists.xenproject.org [192.237.175.120]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D07D2C433EF for ; Mon, 6 Dec 2021 16:21:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by lists.xenproject.org with outflank-mailman.239354.414858 (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1muGjw-0004ef-IH; Mon, 06 Dec 2021 16:21:20 +0000 X-Outflank-Mailman: Message body and most headers restored to incoming version Received: by outflank-mailman (output) from mailman id 239354.414858; Mon, 06 Dec 2021 16:21:20 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.xenproject.org) by lists.xenproject.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1muGjw-0004eY-F0; Mon, 06 Dec 2021 16:21:20 +0000 Received: by outflank-mailman (input) for mailman id 239354; Mon, 06 Dec 2021 16:21:18 +0000 Received: from mail.xenproject.org ([104.130.215.37]) by lists.xenproject.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1muGju-0004e8-Rw for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Mon, 06 Dec 2021 16:21:18 +0000 Received: from xenbits.xenproject.org ([104.239.192.120]) by mail.xenproject.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1muGjr-0001Yy-W9; Mon, 06 Dec 2021 16:21:15 +0000 Received: from 54-240-197-231.amazon.com ([54.240.197.231] helo=[192.168.26.205]) by xenbits.xenproject.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1muGjr-00064c-QH; Mon, 06 Dec 2021 16:21:15 +0000 X-BeenThere: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org List-Id: Xen developer discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xenproject.org Precedence: list Sender: "Xen-devel" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=xen.org; s=20200302mail; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:In-Reply-To:From: References:Cc:To:Subject:MIME-Version:Date:Message-ID; bh=7Dg3ydem1lgxY47qSTmEkw750BxEA2zKC3KXdut4/xo=; b=00g9JKii2Fwhdqh6LGQ5ixXf15 xVpi+mt5grMyQnuYlio/H8C1g71cAz475aL9gT4x2HeerqUAzC2GsGuoPTD3vw71hKk+op4qfl/9I FdKzn2QVK6QEJW4Biec78lz2Qe+txd13h2IGdaSMCSJJGBFZqqrmT//VpGA0NfiAZUpU=; Message-ID: <9affccd1-0f74-c58e-ebd4-5a5546ec80b1@xen.org> Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2021 16:21:13 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.3.2 Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/7] xz: add fall-through comments to a switch statement To: Jan Beulich Cc: Andrew Cooper , George Dunlap , Stefano Stabellini , Wei Liu , "xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org" , Ian Jackson References: <0ed245fa-58a7-a5f6-b82e-48f9ed0b6970@suse.com> <0c0e67f3-5e0a-f047-ca09-1cf078e6b094@suse.com> <71ef250c-be92-2b2f-0f07-ce32c17d8050@xen.org> <0b808ce0-23a2-65ae-dfb3-b167d5565b31@suse.com> <6bcd1555-ee0d-dd6d-55ca-0ca0e64c3623@xen.org> <24992.55453.893877.246946@mariner.uk.xensource.com> <2b4195da-21a8-6c30-27c8-43e943b821a1@suse.com> <53cd2f84-f011-9c97-a108-fd946535920b@xen.org> <5a6ffa5a-6884-57b5-c296-904e9b0b4c78@suse.com> From: Julien Grall In-Reply-To: <5a6ffa5a-6884-57b5-c296-904e9b0b4c78@suse.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Jan, On 06/12/2021 16:12, Jan Beulich wrote: > On 06.12.2021 17:06, Julien Grall wrote: >> On 06/12/2021 15:06, Jan Beulich wrote: >>> On 06.12.2021 15:28, Julien Grall wrote: >>>> I am not going to ack it but I am also not going to Nack it if another >>>> maintainer agrees with your approach. >>> >>> FTAOD I'll be giving it a week or so, but unless I get an outright NAK, >>> I'm now in a position to put this in with Luca's R-b. >> >> From the check-in policy section in MAINTAINERS: >> >> 4. There must be no "open" objections. >> >> So I think this cannot be check-in given two maintainers disagree on the >> approach. That said, as I wrote earlier my condition for not Nacking is >> another maintainer agree with your approach. > > Hmm, I did address both your and Ian's concerns in v2, admittedly by only > going as far as minimally necessary. I therefore wouldn't call this an > "open objection". I believe my objection is still open. I still have have no way to verify what you did is correct. For instance, the tags in patch #2 are: Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20191104185107.3b6330df@tukaani.org Reported-by: Yu Sun Signed-off-by: Lasse Collin Acked-by: Daniel Walker [Linux commit: 8e20ba2e53fc6198cbfbcc700e9f884157052a8d] The tags in the Linux commit are: Signed-off-by: Lasse Collin Reported-by: Yu Sun Acked-by: Daniel Walker Cc: "Yixia Si (yisi)" Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds * The first two matches the original e-mails * I couldn't find the 3rd on the ML. * The Cc could be ignored * The signed-off-by are I guess what you call "mechanical" Cheers, -- Julien Grall