[Xen-ia64-devel] Re: pv_ops polish: config option & head file

[Isaku Yamahata <yamahata@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 03:39:15PM +0800, Dong, Eddie wrote:
> Isaku:
>       Targeting the patchset or git tree
> http://people.valinux.co.jp/~yamahata/xen-ia64/linux-2.6-xen-ia64.git/,
> I got some questions:

Thank you for comments.


> 1:    I saw some config options such as:
> CONFIG_PARAVIRT
> CONFIG_PARAVIRT_ALT
> CONFIG_PARAVIRT_ENTRY
> CONFIG_PARAVIRT_NOP_B_PATCH
> CONFIG_PARAVIRT_GUEST
> 
>       I am not sure what is best, but seems we expose too much here,
> and X86 just have one CONFIG_PARAVIRT. I suggest we can go mainly using
> one especially we have strong reasons.

In fact I'm sorting them out right now as a part of pv_cpu_ops
clean up.
They are just historical leftovers.
Presumably we'll have only CONFIG_PARAVIRT and CONFIG_PARAVIRT_GUEST.
(X86 has both CONFIG_PARAVIRT and CONFIG_PARAVIRT_GUEST.
Please make sure.)


> 2: config file
>       I saw you generated a new config file specifically for domU
> (xen_domu_wip_defconfig), I am wondering is it is what Redhat want. I
> think RH will only build one image for various machine including PV
> guest in one release. So I suggest we remove the new config file 
> xen_domu_wip_defconfig, but put CONFIG_PARAVIRT into each existing
> config files.

I put the file there because others may want to know my config.
I haven't intended to push the file to the upstream. I should have
written so in the commit log message.
Hmm, I can also remove it and put my config somewhere else.
Either way is okay because the file is just for other's convenience.
Which do you prefer, removing it or updating the commit log?

-- 
yamahata

_______________________________________________
Xen-ia64-devel mailing list
Xen-ia64-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-ia64-devel