[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAKf6xpv4Kborx8-0UvadyyzPRGg0TLfD1RWxmkM1PnfPKuXOaA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2020 10:52:38 -0400
From: Jason Andryuk <jandryuk@...il.com>
To: Jürgen Groß <jgross@...e.com>
Cc: Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>,
Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@...nel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
x86@...nel.org, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
xen-devel <xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org>,
open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] xen: Kconfig: nest Xen guest options
On Thu, Oct 15, 2020 at 5:42 AM Jürgen Groß <jgross@...e.com> wrote:
>
> On 14.10.20 19:53, Jason Andryuk wrote:
> > Moving XEN_512GB allows it to nest under XEN_PV. That also allows
> > XEN_PVH to nest under XEN as a sibling to XEN_PV and XEN_PVHVM giving:
> >
> > [*] Xen guest support
> > [*] Xen PV guest support
> > [*] Limit Xen pv-domain memory to 512GB
> > [*] Xen PV Dom0 support
>
> This has currently a wrong text/semantics:
>
> It should be split to CONFIG_XEN_DOM0 and CONFIG_XEN_PV_DOM0.
>
> Otherwise the backends won't be enabled per default for a PVH-only
> config meant to be Dom0-capable.
>
> You don't have to do that in your patches if you don't want to, but
> I wanted to mention it with you touching this area of Kconfig.
Yes, good point. I had not considered that.
> > [*] Xen PVHVM guest support
> > [*] Xen PVH guest support
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Jason Andryuk <jandryuk@...il.com>
>
> Reviewed-by: Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>
Thanks,
Jason
Powered by blists - more mailing lists