[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <7696c3d8-0ede-2704-34bb-d3d7dac6883d@suse.com>
Date: Mon, 15 May 2017 16:09:25 +0200
From: Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>
To: Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
xen-devel <xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org>,
lguest@...ts.ozlabs.org
Subject: Support of lguest?
Lguest and Xen pv-guests are the only users of pv_mmu_ops (with the
one exception of the .exit_mmap member, which is being used by Xen
HVM-guests, too).
As it is possible now to build a kernel without Xen pv-guest support
while keeping PVH and PVHVM support, I thought about putting most
pv_mmu_ops functions in #ifdef CONFIG_XEN_HAS_PVMMU sections. If there
wouldn't be lguest...
So my question: is anybody still using lguest or would like to keep it?
If yes, I'd add CONFIG_PARAVIRT_MMU selected by CONFIG_XEN_PV and
CONFIG_LGUEST_GUEST.
If no, I'd remove lguest support and just use CONFIG_XEN_HAS_PVMMU,
in case nobody would like me to use CONFIG_PARAVIRT_MMU even if
lguest isn't there any more.
Juergen
Powered by blists - more mailing lists