Re: [Xen-merge] CONFIG_XEN vs. CONFIG_X86{,_64}_XEN

["Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxxxx>]

>>> Vincent Hanquez <vincent.hanquez@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 23.12.05 13:28:44
>>>
>On Wed, Dec 21, 2005 at 05:14:43PM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> What was the reason to split these? Why can't we just have a
consistent
>> CONFIG_XEN (provided in arch/*/Kconfig), and derive all
>> architecture-specific information from other CONFIG_* values? Main
>> reason for the question is the (apparently) inconsistent use of one
or
>> the other in various places.
>
>I introduce CONFIG_X86_XEN as a mirror to CONFIG_XEN_X86 that we had
in
>the previous architecture. ditto for CONFIG_X86_64_XEN
>
>CONFIG_XEN should be use when there's no reason to use a specific
>architecture version (which is almost everytimes).
>
>But the option should stay, CONFIG_X86_XEN is actually a subarch
config
>name, and even if x86_64 doesn't have subarch, it's nice to have a
>consistant naming scheme.

I don't fully agree here. Xen only uses the sub-arch functionality, it
shouldn't really be considered a subarch. And, as somebody else also
said before, the option is just redundant, unless there was a
significant number of instances where CONFIG_X86_XEN (or
CONFIG_X86_64_XEN) must be used, but CONFIG_XEN cannot.

Jan

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