RE: [PATCH v2 01/19] xen/x86: remove "depends on !PV_SHIM_EXCLUSIVE"

["Penny, Zheng" <penny.zheng@xxxxxxx>]

[Public]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Tuesday, April 1, 2025 5:02 PM
> To: Penny, Zheng <penny.zheng@xxxxxxx>
> Cc: xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Huang, Ray <Ray.Huang@xxxxxxx>;
> Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>; Roger Pau Monné
> <roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx>; Anthony PERARD <anthony.perard@xxxxxxxxxx>; Orzel,
> Michal <Michal.Orzel@xxxxxxx>; Julien Grall <julien@xxxxxxx>; Stefano
> Stabellini <sstabellini@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 01/19] xen/x86: remove "depends
> on !PV_SHIM_EXCLUSIVE"
>
> On 01.04.2025 10:41, Penny, Zheng wrote:
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>
> >> Sent: Monday, March 31, 2025 2:30 PM
> >>
> >> On 29.03.2025 00:56, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> >>> On Wed, 26 Mar 2025, Penny Zheng wrote:
> >>>> We intend to remove all "depends on !PV_SHIM_EXCLUSIVE" (also the
> >>>> functionally equivalent "if !...") in Kconfig file, since negative
> >>>> dependancy will badly affect allyesconfig.
> >>>> This commit is based on "x86: provide an inverted Kconfig control
> >>>> for shim-exclusive mode"[1]
> >>>>
> >>>> [1]
> >>>> https://lists.xen.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2023-03/msg00040.html
> >>>>
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>
> >>
> >> Where's this coming from, if I may ask?
> >
> > I said in the commit message, this commit is based on your commit
> > "x86: provide an inverted Kconfig control for shim-exclusive mode"[1].
>
> I don't think this belongs there. Also recall what I said elsewhere about 
> "This
> commit ..." and alike not being appropriate wording for commit messages.
>

Understood, I'll remove "This commit is based on xxx".

> > So I think I shall add-in the original author, if it is not the rule, I'll 
> > remove it.
>
> Please remove it. You necessarily touch a few of the same places, but that's 
> about
> it. I accept this route being taken, but I don't agree with it. I don't want 
> to be viewed
> as a co-author in such a case.
>

Understood, I'll remove.

> However, you having gone from that patch (which had an entirely different
> intention), has lead to the patch here being incomplete. At least my 
> understanding
> of Andrew's original request was to not only prune Kconfig-s of the 
> dependency,
> but also e.g. various Makefile-s. Possibly even .c and .h ones. That clearly 
> wasn't
> necessary with the approach I had taken. Please consult with Andrew to 
> confirm.
>
> Jan