From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Zachary Amsden Subject: Re: [PATCH] Move KVM, paravirt, lguest, VMI and Xen under arch-level Virtualization option Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2007 23:10:54 -0700 Message-ID: <46A051EE.7060304@vmware.com> References: <1184905342.10380.263.camel@localhost.localdomain> <46A046F1.7040207@qumranet.com> <1184911347.10380.274.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1184911347.10380.274.camel@localhost.localdomain> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: virtualization-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org Errors-To: virtualization-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org To: Rusty Russell Cc: Jeff Dike , lkml - Kernel Mailing List , virtualization , Andi Kleen , Linus Torvalds List-Id: virtualization@lists.linuxfoundation.org Rusty Russell wrote: >> Otherwise we end up with $NARCH copies of that Kconfig, each slightly >> different. The top-level entry can be made to depend on the archs that >> actually have some virt capability, so as not to show empty an menu. >> > > I dislike the duplication, too, but > > 1) it's a CPU capability, and that's where it belongs in the menu. > 2) And as you can see from the difference between the x86_64 and i386 > help text, there are real platform differences (and not mentioning > what's under the menu would be kinda cheating). > 3) Virtualization doesn't even make sense as an option for some > platforms where it's always on. > I'm rather indifferent on the matter, but I think a virtualization menu under UML would be very confusing. Zach