[Public] > -----Original Message----- > From: Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com> > Sent: Tuesday, April 1, 2025 5:02 PM > To: Penny, Zheng <penny.zh...@amd.com> > Cc: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Huang, Ray <ray.hu...@amd.com>; > Andrew Cooper <andrew.coop...@citrix.com>; Roger Pau Monné > <roger....@citrix.com>; Anthony PERARD <anthony.per...@vates.tech>; Orzel, > Michal <michal.or...@amd.com>; Julien Grall <jul...@xen.org>; Stefano > Stabellini <sstabell...@kernel.org> > 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 <jbeul...@suse.com> > >> 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 <jbeul...@suse.com> > >> > >> 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
