From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Jan Beulich" Subject: Re: Requesting for freeze exception for RMRR Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2015 10:38:04 +0100 Message-ID: <55A4F49C0200007800090880@mail.emea.novell.com> References: <55A35B5E.3000805@intel.com> <55A3DB88020000780009035D@mail.emea.novell.com> <55A45719.3040204@intel.com> <55A4F00D020000780009080D@mail.emea.novell.com> <55A4D61B.7000403@intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <55A4D61B.7000403@intel.com> Content-Disposition: inline List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Tiejun Chen Cc: Kevin , "wei.liu2@citrix.com" , "ian.campbell@citrix.com" , George Dunlap , Andrew Cooper , "ian.jackson@eu.citrix.com" , Yong Y Wang , "xen-devel@lists.xen.org" List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org >>> On 14.07.15 at 11:27, wrote: >>>>> Y Y [v7][PATCH 14/16] xen/vtd: enable USB device assignment >>>>> Y Y [v7][PATCH 15/16] xen/vtd: prevent from assign the device with >>>>> shared rmrr >>>> >>>> And yet again for these two. Please avoid giving a false impression >>> >>> But these two patches really won Kevin's Ack, and also I wrote this line >>> >>> Acked-by: Kevin Tian >>> >>> both in these two patches. >> >> But talk here is about their review status, not who ack-ed them (and >> an ack by other than a maintainer of the affected code is not very >> meaningful anyway). > > Isn't Kevin the key maintainer specific to IOMMU subsystem? Yes, he is (for VT-d to be precise). See my reply just sent to Ian's similar response. Jan