[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <3919ef15-379b-cc1e-994c-c33b23865afd@suse.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2020 17:02:21 +0200
From: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@...e.com>
To: Jason Andryuk <jandryuk@...il.com>
Cc: Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>,
Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.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 1/2] xen: Remove Xen PVH/PVHVM dependency on PCI
On 15.10.2020 16:59, Jason Andryuk wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 15, 2020 at 4:10 AM Jan Beulich <jbeulich@...e.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 14.10.2020 19:53, Jason Andryuk wrote:
>>> @@ -76,7 +80,9 @@ config XEN_DEBUG_FS
>>> Enabling this option may incur a significant performance overhead.
>>>
>>> config XEN_PVH
>>> - bool "Support for running as a Xen PVH guest"
>>> + bool "Xen PVH guest support"
>>
>> Tangential question: Is "guest" here still appropriate, i.e.
>> isn't this option also controlling whether the kernel can be
>> used in a PVH Dom0?
>
> Would you like something more generic like "Xen PVH support" and
> "Support for running in Xen PVH mode"?
Yeah, just dropping "guest" would be fine with me. No idea how
to reflect that PVH Dom0 isn't supported, yet.
Jan
Powered by blists - more mailing lists