linux-kernel - Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] xen: remove unused Kconfig parameter

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <51DBDAB802000078000E37C1@nat28.tlf.novell.com>
Date:	Tue, 09 Jul 2013 08:41:12 +0100
From:	"Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@...e.com>
To:	"Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk" <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>
Cc:	"Borislav Petkov" <bp@...en8.de>, "Matt Wilson" <msw@...zon.com>,
	"Michael Opdenacker" <michael.opdenacker@...e-electrons.com>,
	<jeremy@...p.org>, <x86@...nel.org>, <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	<virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
	<xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com>, <mingo@...hat.com>,
	"Paul Bolle" <pebolle@...cali.nl>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] xen: remove unused Kconfig parameter

>>> On 09.07.13 at 02:26, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com> wrote:
> Could you explain to me please why the check in the scripts is superfluous?

This is not really the question - _any_ such check can only be
wrong. The boot loader has absolutely no business caring about
kernel internals, and the kernel shouldn't be limited by it in how it
renames/adds/deletes Kconfig options and anything else.

> Especially as the grand plan is to get rid of CONFIG_XEN_DOM0 and more or 
> less have a backend and fronted config option (since that makes more sense 
> nowadays). And that would make the XEN_DOM0 be obsolete and the XEN_PRIV 
> would be the one that turns a lot of the options needed to compile a kernel 
> that can provide backend driver support. (I am hand waving here). 

That's pretty odd a plan, considering that Dom0 is more than just
an environment to provide backends. In fact, Dom0 may not be
providing any backends at all, and instead just serve the
"controlling hardware" and/or "control domain" purpose that it
really is meant to be. But of course, if none of _that_ functionality
depends on this config option, then it indeed could go away.

Jan

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/