On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 05:00:56PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote: > Hi, > > On 29-03-18 16:27, Mike Travis wrote: > > > > > >On 3/29/2018 2:36 AM, Daniel Kiper wrote: > >>On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 05:29:01PM +0800, Michael Chang wrote: > >>>On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 11:02:51AM +0200, Daniel Kiper wrote: > >>>>On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 11:42:18AM -0500, mike.tra...@hpe.com wrote: > >>>>>A GPU inserted into a PCIe I/O slot disappears during system startup. > >>>>>The problem centers around GRUB and a specific VGA init function in > >>>>>efi_uga.c.?? This causes an LER (link error recorvery) because the MMIO > >>>>>memory has not been enabled before attempting access. > >>>>> > >>>>>The fix is to add the same coding used in other VGA drivers, > >>>>>specifically > >>>>>to add a check to insure that it is indeed a VGA controller.?? And then > >>>>>enable the MMIO address space with the specific bits. > >>>>> > >>>>>Signed-off-by: Mike Travis <mike.tra...@hpe.com> > >>>>>Reviewed-by: Michael Chang <mch...@suse.com> > >>>>>Reviewed-by: Daniel Kiper <dki...@net-space.pl> > >>>> > >>>>Well, please do not add somebody RB tag if he/she did not explicitly > >>>>asked you to do that. And even in that case I was not able to look at > >>>>this patch in advance. So, my RB should not be here. Additionally, in > >>>>this situation I would like to ask if Michael approved his RB? > >>> > >>>We did have discussion about the patch before it was submitted upstream > >>>but I > >>>did not ask for RB as well. > >>> > >>>>Anyway, patch LGTM except one nitpick. I will apply the patch, in a > >>>>week or > >>>>so, with Michael's RB if I get confirmation that he approved it earlier. > >>> > >>>As I did not ask for it, it has to be removed. > >> > >>OK, I will commit this patch without your RB. > >> > >>Daniel > >> > > > >Sorry, I was not aware of this custom.?? I thought that if someone > >reviewed the code then that was an indication that it should be noted. I > >am aware of the more restrictive Acked-by which is normally sent by the > >"acker" to the submitter.?? I will be more mindful of this in the > >future.?? (This is my first posting to any of the GNU mail lists).
No problem. > Reviewed-by actually is stronger then Acked-by at least that is > what I believe, I've always interpreted these 2 as: > > Acked-by: foo: Foo took a quick glance at the proposed changes and > thinks this is a sensible change > Reviewed-by: foo: Foo did a detailed review of the code and did not find > any issues I think that you can take look at Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst in Linux kernel source. Most of us more or less adhere to this. Well, I think that I should put something similar into GRUB2 tree. Daniel _______________________________________________ Grub-devel mailing list Grub-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel
