On Fri, Apr 08, 2016 at 11:13:08AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote: > >>> On 08.04.16 at 19:09, <konrad.w...@oracle.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 08, 2016 at 10:33:33AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote: > >> >>> On 31.03.16 at 15:28, <konrad.w...@oracle.com> wrote: > >> > On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 06:07:58AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote: > >> >> >>> On 31.03.16 at 13:43, <kon...@kernel.org> wrote: > >> >> > On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 12:30:09AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote: > >> >> >> >>> On 30.03.16 at 17:43, <jbeul...@suse.com> wrote: > >> >> >> > Since they're all cosmetic, if you take care of all of them, feel > >> >> >> > free > >> >> >> > to stick my ack on the result. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Actually - no, please don't. While the patch is fine content wise > >> >> >> then from my perspective, I'm still lacking a convincing argument > >> >> >> of why this new hypercall is needed in the first place. If others > >> >> >> are convinced by the argumentation between (mostly, iirc) you > >> >> >> and Andrew, I'm not going to stand in the way, but I'm also not > >> >> >> going to approve of the code addition without being myself > >> >> >> convinced. > >> >> > > >> >> > Damm. I pushed the patch in yesterday in 'staging'! > >> >> > > >> >> > We can always revert them.. > >> >> > > >> >> > "Others" being other maintainers I presume? > >> >> > >> >> Any one of the REST maintainers, yes. > >> > > >> > Changing the title to get their attention. > >> > >> Yet nothing has happened, so I think the patch needs to be > >> reverted (at least for the time being). > > > > Wait what?! > > > > The natural consensus mechanism we use is lazy. If nobody > > objects then it is Acked. > > Since when can patches go in without any ack(s) of relevant > maintainers? >
Urgh, at the risk of pointing out the obvious -- it does seem to have your ack... Wei. > Jan > _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
