Juergen Gross writes ("[PATCH 0/9] libxl: spolit up libxl.c"): > Code movement only. No functional change intended.
This statement is not true because > Juergen Gross (9): > libxl: adjust copyright comment of libxl.c ... that patch is not just code motion. Can you please double-check, and explicitly enumerate the other intentional changes ? Obviously there is an intentional change to the Makefile, and the copyright header is duplicated in each case. Are there any other changes which are not precisely moving a block of lines from libxl.c into other file(s), completely unchanged ? Did you have to make any functions non-static ? Thanks, Ian. _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel