Re: [PATCH v6 02/12] common/hyperlaunch: introduce the domain builder

[Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>]

On 06.05.2025 21:29, Daniel P. Smith wrote:
> On 5/2/25 03:21, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 30.04.2025 20:56, Daniel P. Smith wrote:
>>> On 4/29/25 08:36, Alejandro Vallejo wrote:
>>>> --- a/xen/common/Makefile
>>>> +++ b/xen/common/Makefile
>>>> @@ -11,6 +11,7 @@ obj-$(filter-out $(CONFIG_X86),$(CONFIG_ACPI)) += device.o
>>>>    obj-$(CONFIG_HAS_DEVICE_TREE) += device-tree/
>>>>    obj-$(CONFIG_IOREQ_SERVER) += dm.o
>>>>    obj-y += domain.o
>>>> +obj-$(CONFIG_DOMAIN_BUILDER) += domain-builder/
>>>
>>> Please don't do this, use IF_ENABLED in core.c and then hide the
>>> unnecessary units in domain-builder/Makefile as I originally had it.
>>> This allows for a much easier time incrementally converting the dom0
>>> construction path into a generalized domain construction path.
>>
>> That is, are you viewing this as a transitional thing only? If the end
>> goal is to have it as Alejandro has it above, that may be acceptable
>> (even if not nice).
> 
> There is/will be shared domain construction code between dom0-only and 
> multidomain construction, with it will all living under domain builder. 
> So no, the end goal is not what Alejandro just did. The end result will 
> be the way I had it, with a different kconfig option to enable/disable 
> the multidomain construction path.

Isn't CONFIG_DOMAIN_BUILDER a misnomer then?

Jan