Re: [LKML] Re: [PATCH 1/1] ibft, x86: Change reserve_ibft_region() to find_ibft_region()

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
From: Linus Torvalds
Date: Thursday, April 8, 2010 - 10:28 am

On Thu, 8 Apr 2010, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:

No, no, a sign-off is already an ack, and is "stronger" than an ack, since 
it actually also means that you send it onwards. A patch that you don't 
like you would obviously never sign off on either.

I was more looking for comments from other people who know what the heck 
that early reservation system does.

		Linus
--
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
[GIT PULL IBFT] iBFT update for 2.6.34-rc3, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk, (Thu Apr 8, 8:52 am)
[PATCH 1/1] ibft, x86: Change reserve_ibft_region() to fin ..., Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk, (Thu Apr 8, 8:52 am)
Re: [LKML] Re: [PATCH 1/1] ibft, x86: Change reserve_ibft_ ..., Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk, (Thu Apr 8, 9:12 am)
Re: [LKML] Re: [PATCH 1/1] ibft, x86: Change reserve_ibft_ ..., Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk, (Thu Apr 8, 10:14 am)
Re: [LKML] Re: [PATCH 1/1] ibft, x86: Change reserve_ibft_ ..., Linus Torvalds, (Thu Apr 8, 10:28 am)