From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andrew Cooper Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: wrap kexec feature with CONFIG_KEXEC Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2015 11:00:32 +0100 Message-ID: <55E6C8C0.7060308@citrix.com> References: <1440686870-19104-1-git-send-email-jonathan.creekmore@gmail.com> <55DF2C57.8030100@citrix.com> <1441103777.27618.31.camel@citrix.com> <55E58171.80509@citrix.com> <55E5A017020000780009E87E@prv-mh.provo.novell.com> <55E584F8.2030304@citrix.com> <55E584F8.2030304@citrix.com> <55E5D9AA020000780009EABD@prv-mh.provo.novell.com><55E5D9AA020000780009EABD@prv-mh.provo.novell.com> (Jan Beulich's message of "Tue, 01 Sep 2015 09:00:26 -0600") <55E6B906020000780009ED0C@prv-mh.provo.novell.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <55E6B906020000780009ED0C@prv-mh.provo.novell.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: xen-devel@lists.xen.org List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 02/09/15 07:53, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>> On 01.09.15 at 19:55, wrote: >> "Jan Beulich" writes: >> >>>>>> On 01.09.15 at 16:29, wrote: >>> Which is both appreciated and understandable. I suppose you >>> agree though that if you were to follow the model used for the >>> kexec part, things would quickly become unwieldy. Hence I would >>> strongly suggest considering to introduce Linux'es or a >>> Linux-like configure mechanism before continuing to make code >>> conditionally compilable. >> Oh, I definitely agree. >> >> What exactly are you looking for? Are you looking for just a KConfig >> type of mechanism, or a full KBuild implementation. In a previous life, >> I ported both to an embedded RTOS build. I think it might be simpler to >> just start with a KConfig mechanism, though. If you want, I can take a >> swing at starting down that path. > Just Kconfig (I don't see any connection here to the need of a > clone of the Kbuild mechanism). But give it a little time for other > maintainers to voice an opinion (perhaps worthwhile spelling out > the intention in a separate mail thread). For something like this, just Kconfig. That will be a good improvement on its own. There are orthogonal reasons for looking to improve the build system itself (In particular, being able to do out-of-tree builds), but lets not merge the issues together. ~Andrew