From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge Subject: Re: [FW: FYI: The plan for Xen kernels in Fedora 9] Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 08:57:47 -0800 Message-ID: <475EC18B.3090500@goop.org> References: <20071210152025.GF12703@redhat.com> <1197306414.12267.23.camel@sisko.scot.redhat.com> <475DDB9A.30300@goop.org> <1197374909.8541.3.camel@sisko.scot.redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1197374909.8541.3.camel@sisko.scot.redhat.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com To: "Stephen C. Tweedie" Cc: "xen-devel@lists.xensource.com" , "Daniel P. Berrange" List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org Stephen C. Tweedie wrote: > Hi, > > On Mon, 2007-12-10 at 16:36 -0800, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote: > > >> I just had a quick look through this, and it looks good to me. One >> thing though: I'm wondering if we shouldn't have CONFIG_XEN_DOM0 protect >> this stuff, so that its possible to build a domU-only kernel. >> > > Yep, I did wonder about that. > > But... there's actually quite a lot that isn't really dom0-specific. > Rather, it's IO-domain-specific. Configure a PV guest with PCI > passthrough and you'd want much of the same functionality in it. > > Also, adding CONFIG entries just increases the size of the source right > now. I certainly think it's worth having eventually, but for now I'm > aiming for minimal invasiveness, so I haven't bothered with domU-only > configs. > > If people think it's important I can add them sooner rather than later, > of course. I think they're useful as documentation, so you can tell whether a piece of code is dom0/io-specific vs generic. On the other hand, #ifdefs are undesirable, and more config options just means more combinatorial build testing. So put me down as uselessly indecisive on this one. J