From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org>
Subject: Re: Using xen-netfront in dom0
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2010 10:15:21 -0700
Message-ID: <4BCC8FA9.80309@goop.org>
References: <20100419082624.GC18572@emperor2.itldev.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-2
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com>
In-Reply-To: <20100419082624.GC18572@emperor2.itldev.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-Help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com
Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com
To: Rafal Wojtczuk <rafal@invisiblethingslab.com>
Cc: xen-devel@lists.xensource.com, qubes-devel@googlegroups.com
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

On 04/19/2010 01:26 AM, Rafal Wojtczuk wrote:
> Is there any reason for this check, besides obviously false assumption
> "nobody needs it in dom0" ? On a related note, there seems to be no such
> check in xen-blkfront.c.
>
> If there are no disadvantages, I would vote for removal of the
> xen_initial_domain() check; otherwise, can we have a module parameter 
> "allow_dom0" ?
>   

No, I think its probably fine to remove the check.  Presumably if the
driver is modular it would never get loaded in a normal dom0 case
anyway?  And in the non-modular case, an initialized but unused driver
shouldn't take much memory (and if it does, that should be fixed).

    J