On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 05:21:24AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote: > >>> On 20.08.16 at 00:43, <daniel.ki...@oracle.com> wrote: > > Its visibility is not needed and just pollute symbol table. > > > > Suggested-by: Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com> > > Signed-off-by: Daniel Kiper <daniel.ki...@oracle.com> > > With Andrew effectively having NAK-ed v4 of this patch, I don't see > why - without further argumentation - this has been included again.
I have saw that discussion stopped somewhere in the middle, so, I was not sure what is your final decision. However, if you approve/agree Andrew's NAK then I think that we should use "multiboot2_header_end" label instead of .Lmultiboot2_header_end in patch #9 (x86: add multiboot2 protocol support). Just to be in line with multiboot (v1) protocol header. Daniel _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
