On 02/15/2016 07:54 PM, Corneliu ZUZU wrote: > On 2/15/2016 7:47 PM, Tamas K Lengyel wrote: >> >> >> On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 10:40 AM, Corneliu ZUZU <cz...@bitdefender.com >> <mailto:cz...@bitdefender.com>> wrote: >> >> On 2/15/2016 10:30 AM, Razvan Cojocaru wrote: >> >> On 02/15/2016 08:35 AM, Corneliu ZUZU wrote: >> >> This patch merges almost identical functions >> hvm_event_int3 and >> hvm_event_single_step into a single function called >> hvm_event_breakpoint. >> Also fixes event.c file header comment in the process. >> >> Signed-off-by: Corneliu ZUZU >> <<mailto:cz...@bitdefender.com>cz...@bitdefender.com> >> --- >> xen/arch/x86/hvm/event.c | 108 >> +++++++++++++++++++--------------------- >> xen/arch/x86/hvm/vmx/vmx.c | 15 +++--- >> xen/include/asm-x86/hvm/event.h | 11 ++-- >> 3 files changed, 67 insertions(+), 67 deletions(-) >> >> Looks good to me. >> >> Acked-by: Razvan Cojocaru >> <<mailto:rcojoc...@bitdefender.com>rcojoc...@bitdefender.com> >> >> >> Thanks, >> Razvan >> >> >> If the patch hasn't been merged to staging yet then include it. If >> it's a longer series the cover page can indicate which patches are >> still in need of review and which ones have been already acked. >> Furthermore, for each patch under the Signed-off-by tag you can say >> what changed in each revision. If nothing changed, you can say no >> change or just don't put anything for that revision. See >> <http://lists.xen.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2016-02/msg00943.html>http://lists.xen.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2016-02/msg00943.html >> for an example. Also keep in mind that if the changes in a revision >> are significant enough you can't keep the Acked-by tag on the patch, >> it will need to be re-acked. >> >> Tamas > > Got it, thanks.
This particular patch did make it into staging. It's 557c7873f35aa39bd84977b28948457b1b342f92. _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
