From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.9 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, NICE_REPLY_A,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 713CCC07E9B for ; Wed, 21 Jul 2021 09:58:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.xenproject.org (lists.xenproject.org [192.237.175.120]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2DDE860FDA for ; Wed, 21 Jul 2021 09:58:14 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 2DDE860FDA Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=xenproject.org Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=xen-devel-bounces@lists.xenproject.org Received: from list by lists.xenproject.org with outflank-mailman.159254.292946 (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1m68zK-0000Ot-11; Wed, 21 Jul 2021 09:58:02 +0000 X-Outflank-Mailman: Message body and most headers restored to incoming version Received: by outflank-mailman (output) from mailman id 159254.292946; Wed, 21 Jul 2021 09:58:02 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.xenproject.org) by lists.xenproject.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1m68zJ-0000Om-UG; Wed, 21 Jul 2021 09:58:01 +0000 Received: by outflank-mailman (input) for mailman id 159254; Wed, 21 Jul 2021 09:58:00 +0000 Received: from mail.xenproject.org ([104.130.215.37]) by lists.xenproject.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1m68zI-0000Og-4v for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Wed, 21 Jul 2021 09:58:00 +0000 Received: from xenbits.xenproject.org ([104.239.192.120]) by mail.xenproject.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1m68zI-00088N-13 for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Wed, 21 Jul 2021 09:58:00 +0000 Received: from iwj (helo=mariner.uk.xensource.com) by xenbits.xenproject.org with local-bsmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1m68zI-0007IJ-08 for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Wed, 21 Jul 2021 09:58:00 +0000 Received: from iwj by mariner.uk.xensource.com with local (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1m68zB-0000uj-R0; Wed, 21 Jul 2021 10:57:53 +0100 X-BeenThere: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org List-Id: Xen developer discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xenproject.org Precedence: list Sender: "Xen-devel" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=xenproject.org; s=20200302mail; h=References:In-Reply-To:Subject:Cc:To:Date :Message-ID:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:MIME-Version:From; bh=YZaXrz0Ot4cfTtbc8IeqYb3sXz7bemkQKscEAedT8e8=; b=Axyvy4eX50GziJsBIEb2fCsVdx ZRo+H0E46uveA2mVOEsfrutjz7X6v30CeZnaqHvoVxe7Ig25iaTSqax0upmpK4mCMhDTnpgiZnKFx m9KdJta29xomflAOXlpwJ+HoZaBvIXegmqz81W+1dvVB9xNei+q4kP63OLxT2ORJsiP4=; From: Ian Jackson MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <24823.61345.641428.907592@mariner.uk.xensource.com> Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2021 10:57:53 +0100 To: Scott Davis , Julien Grall Cc: Andrew Cooper , xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org, Scott Davis , Wei Liu , George Dunlap , Nick Rosbrook , Anthony PERARD , Juergen Gross Subject: Re: [PATCH] tools/xl: Add stubdomain_cmdline option to xl.cfg In-Reply-To: References: <6562806d7430431dc154af2c6e4a5232725fc136.1626800539.git.scott.davis@starlab.io> <56f86674-7a6c-3f3a-40e9-dcb35cddbb88@citrix.com> X-Mailer: VM 8.2.0b under 24.5.1 (i686-pc-linux-gnu) 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.