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
|
Home