[Public] > -----Original Message----- > From: Jan Beulich <[email protected]> > Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2025 7:28 PM > To: Penny, Zheng <[email protected]>; Stefano Stabellini > <[email protected]> > Cc: Huang, Ray <[email protected]>; Julien Grall <[email protected]>; Bertrand > Marquis <[email protected]>; Orzel, Michal <[email protected]>; > Volodymyr Babchuk <[email protected]>; Andrew Cooper > <[email protected]>; Anthony PERARD <[email protected]>; > Roger Pau Monné <[email protected]>; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 16/26] xen/domctl: wrap arch-specific > domain_set_time_offset() with CONFIG_MGMT_HYPERCALLS > > On 10.09.2025 09:38, Penny Zheng wrote: > > Arch-specific domain_set_time_offset() is responisble for > > XEN_DOMCTL_settimeoffset domctl-op, and shall be wrapped with > > CONFIG_MGMT_HYPERCALLS Wrap XEN_DOMCTL_settimeoffset-case > transiently > > with CONFIG_MGMT_HYPERCALLS, and it will be removed when introducing > > CONFIG_MGMT_HYPERCALLS on the common/domctl.c in the last. > > As I keep seeing this same wording, I finally have to say something there as > well: For one, the last patch doesn't introduce CONFIG_MGMT_HYPERCALLS on > common/domctl.c. In instead makes the building of common/domctl.o conditional > upon that control being set. And then, "in the last" (btw - last what?) is as > unhelpful > as "in the next patch" or "in the previous patch". When writing commit > messages, > you want to make sure they make sense all on their own, no matter in what > order > patches are committed (in particular possibly piecemeal and interspersed with > other > patches). Possible replacement wording: >
Thanks for the detailed clarification! Learned and will fix > > Jan
