Re: [PATCH] tools/xl: Add stubdomain_cmdline option to xl.cfg

[Ian Jackson <iwj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

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.