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. > 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. 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
