Re: [PATCH RESEND 2/2] xen: Allow EXPERT mode to be selected from the menuconfig directly

[Ian Jackson <ian.jackson@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Julien Grall writes ("Re: [PATCH RESEND 2/2] xen: Allow EXPERT mode to be 
selected from the menuconfig directly"):
> On 04/05/2020 13:34, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > George Dunlap writes ("Re: [PATCH RESEND 2/2] xen: Allow EXPERT mode to be 
> > selected from the menuconfig directly"):
> >> On Apr 30, 2020, at 3:50 PM, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>> Well, if I'm not mis-remembering it was on purpose to make it more
> >>> difficult for people to declare themselves "experts". FAOD I'm not
> >>> meaning to imply I don't see and accept the frustration aspect you
> >>> mention further up. The two need to be carefully weighed against
> >>> one another.
> > 
> > Yes, it was on purpose.  However, I had my doubts at the time and
> > I think experience has shown that this was a mistake.
> > 
> >> I don’t think we need to make it difficult for people to declare
> >> themselves experts, particularly as “all” it means at the moment is,
> >> “Can build something which is not security supported”.  People who
> >> are building their own hypervisors are already pretty well advanced;
> >> I think we can let them shoot themselves in the foot if they want
> >> to.
> > 
> > Precisely.
> 
> Can I consider this as an Acked-by? :)

I am happy with the principle of the change.  I haven't reviewed the
details of the commit message etc.

I reviewed the thread and there were two concernes raised:

 * The question of principle.  I disagree with this concern
   because I approve of principle of the patch.

 * Some detail about the precise justificaton as written in
   the commit message, regarding `clean' targets.  Apparently the
   assertion may not be completely true.  I haven't seen a proposed
   alternative wording.

I don't feel I should ack a controversial patch with an unresolved
wording issue.  Can you tell me what your proposed wording is ?
To avoid blocking this change I would be happy to review your wording
and see if it meets my reading of the stated objection.

Alternatively, if you can get agreement from others on the wording of
the commit message, you may put my ack on the patch.

HTH,
Ian.