WARNING - OLD ARCHIVES

This is an archived copy of the Xen.org mailing list, which we have preserved to ensure that existing links to archives are not broken. The live archive, which contains the latest emails, can be found at http://lists.xen.org/
   
 
 
Xen 
 
Home Products Support Community News
 
   
 

xen-devel

Re: [Xen-devel] [FW: FYI: The plan for Xen kernels in Fedora 9]

To: "Stephen C. Tweedie" <sct@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [FW: FYI: The plan for Xen kernels in Fedora 9]
From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 08:57:47 -0800
Cc: "xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Daniel P. Berrange" <berrange@xxxxxxxxxx>
Delivery-date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 08:58:13 -0800
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <1197374909.8541.3.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
List-help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com>
List-post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
References: <20071210152025.GF12703@xxxxxxxxxx> <1197306414.12267.23.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <475DDB9A.30300@xxxxxxxx> <1197374909.8541.3.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (X11/20071115)
Stephen C. Tweedie wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, 2007-12-10 at 16:36 -0800, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
>
>   
>> I just had a quick look through this, and it looks good to me.  One
>> thing though: I'm wondering if we shouldn't have CONFIG_XEN_DOM0 protect
>> this stuff, so that its possible to build a domU-only kernel.
>>     
>
> Yep, I did wonder about that.
>
> But... there's actually quite a lot that isn't really dom0-specific.
> Rather, it's IO-domain-specific.  Configure a PV guest with PCI
> passthrough and you'd want much of the same functionality in it.  
>
> Also, adding CONFIG entries just increases the size of the source right
> now.  I certainly think it's worth having eventually, but for now I'm
> aiming for minimal invasiveness, so I haven't bothered with domU-only
> configs.
>
> If people think it's important I can add them sooner rather than later,
> of course.

I think they're useful as documentation, so you can tell whether a piece
of code is dom0/io-specific vs generic.  On the other hand, #ifdefs are
undesirable, and more config options just means more combinatorial build
testing.

So put me down as uselessly indecisive on this one.

    J


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>