On 07.09.2022 15:13, Bertrand Marquis wrote: > Hi Jan, > >> On 7 Sep 2022, at 13:06, Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com> wrote: >> >> On 07.09.2022 13:09, Rahul Singh wrote: >>> is_memory_hole was implemented for x86 and not for ARM when introduced. >>> Replace is_memory_hole call to pci_check_bar as function should check >>> if device BAR is in defined memory range. Also, add an implementation >>> for ARM which is required for PCI passthrough. >>> >>> On x86, pci_check_bar will call is_memory_hole which will check if BAR >>> is not overlapping with any memory region defined in the memory map. >>> >>> On ARM, pci_check_bar will go through the host bridge ranges and check >>> if the BAR is in the range of defined ranges. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Rahul Singh <rahul.si...@arm.com> >>> --- >>> Changes in v4: >>> - check "s <= e" before callback >>> - Add TODO comment for revisiting the function pci_check_bar() when >>> ACPI PCI passthrough support is added. >>> - Not Added the Jan Acked-by as patch is modified. >> >> Hmm, I don't see any change to the parts the ack covers (x86 and common), >> so please re-instate. I'm not in the position to ack Arm changes; things >> would be different for a Reviewed-by without scope restriction. > > This might have been clear for you but your ack was not mentioning anything. > As the newer version is modified anyway, we remove it.
An ack can only ever apply to changes to files the person offering the tag is a maintainer of. Hence there's rarely a reason to scope-restrict it. As opposed to Reviewed-by, where someone may indeed have reviewed only part of a patch. > But I understand from your answer that your ack is still valid for this > version. That's correct. Jan
