[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [PATCH] tools/xl: Add stubdomain_cmdline option to xl.cfg
Julien Grall writes ("Re: [PATCH] tools/xl: Add stubdomain_cmdline option to xl.cfg"): > Everyone has a different perspective. I don't see the problem of asking > the question... Maybe I should have add "OOI" to make clear with wasn't > a complain. Yes, I think asking questions is fine, but we need to be conscious of our status as maintainers and therefore gatekeepers. When someone in a gatekeeper position asks a question, the possibility of it being a blocker is always present. Indeed, I think it is even usual. Adding "OOI" helps but it can help to be even more explicit. Particularly, if someone proposes to add a feature, and a maintainer asks "why can't you do X instead", there is a strong sense that the maintainer thinks the feature is not (or may not be) necessary and wants a stronger justification. That can be quite discouraging. If that disccouragement is not what's intended, then it can help for the maintaier to be more explicit. For example: "I don't oppose this feature. But I am curious:..." As for the original patch, I am in support of it and have reviewed it. I have have only one question: > + stubdom_state->pv_cmdline = guest_config->b_info.stubdomain_cmdline; It's been a while since I looked at this code. I think that this is the effective line, which takes the end result of the plumbing in the rest of the patch and delivers it to this field of stubdom_state, which is otherwise always null ? Ian.
|
![]() |
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |