From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk Subject: Re: [PATCH] xen: remove CONFIG_XEN_DOM0 compile option Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2012 12:27:00 -0500 Message-ID: <20120111172700.GA4449@phenom.dumpdata.com> References: <4F0B8D06.8050501@goop.org> <8e643150-6be5-44ba-aba3-a987b22fc82b@zmail13.collab.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com> <20120111161911.GB18203@andromeda.dapyr.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20120111161911.GB18203@andromeda.dapyr.net> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com To: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk Cc: Andrew Jones , xen-devel@lists.xensource.com, virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, Jeremy Fitzhardinge , Stefano Stabellini List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 12:19:11PM -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote: > > > If the root complaint is that "customers think that anything set in > > > .config is a supported feature", then the solutions are to support > > > all > > > the features in .config, re-educate the customers that they're wrong, > > > or > > > maintain a local patch to do this stuff. > > > > If only re-educating people was free, like preempting questions is. > > Local patches are of course always an option, and perhaps in this > > case it's the best one. However, I think we already made a case for > > better xen configurability for the driver domains, so I'm not 100% > > Could you repost those backend patches please? At this point I am not > sure which one we have discarded? hm, I was thinking in terms of the XenBus ones. We had somewhere in this converstion something about seperating the backend's from depending on CONFIG_XEN_DOM0 as they can be run in any domain nowadays. > > > convinced my initial patch (making dom0 configurable) isn't worthy > > of upstream. Also, I didn't see any comments on my v2[*] of that > > patch, which I believe satisfies the menu complexity issue and > > brings in more configurability. That said, I'm about to reply to > > that patch myself, since there's an issue with it. > > > > Drew > > > > [*] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel.virtualization/14635 > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Xen-devel mailing list > > Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com > > http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel