From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: George Dunlap Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] raisin: Add XEN_CONFIG_EXTRA to config file Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2015 10:24:06 +0100 Message-ID: <5624B6B6.4020409@citrix.com> References: <1444839707-2339-1-git-send-email-george.dunlap@eu.citrix.com> <1444839707-2339-6-git-send-email-george.dunlap@eu.citrix.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Stefano Stabellini , George Dunlap Cc: Stefano Stabellini , xen-devel@lists.xen.org List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 16/10/15 14:53, Stefano Stabellini wrote: > On Wed, 14 Oct 2015, George Dunlap wrote: >> Allowing the user to enable or disable specific functionality, such as >> stubdoms. >> >> Signed-off-by: George Dunlap > > I don't like this very much: if we want to disable stubdoms by default > with all configs, then I would prefer to simply add --disable-stubdom to > components/xen without introducing XEN_CONFIG_EXTRA. > > Otherwise if we want to give users the chance to add an extra config > option, I would introduce a generic way to do that, so that people can > use it with any components they want, QEMU, libvirt, etc. You did notice that this config option is disabled by default, right? I added the line commented-out as an example of the sort of thing you might want to do. I don't think we want to disable stubdoms by default across the board. I wouldn't object to adding empty config variables to the other components; I just don't have a good way to test them at the moment. -George