Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v4 09/14] xen/x86: split Dom0 build into PV and PVHv2

["Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

>>> On 16.12.16 at 18:42, <roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 09:18:13AM -0700, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> >>> On 16.12.16 at 15:28, <roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > On Fri, Dec 09, 2016 at 09:07:16AM -0700, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> >> >>> On 30.11.16 at 17:49, <roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >> > --- a/docs/misc/xen-command-line.markdown
>> >> > +++ b/docs/misc/xen-command-line.markdown
>> >> > @@ -656,6 +656,23 @@ affinities to prefer but be not limited to the 
> specified node(s).
>> >> >  
>> >> >  Pin dom0 vcpus to their respective pcpus
>> >> >  
>> >> > +### dom0
>> >> > +> `= List of [ hvm | shadow ]`
>> >> > +
>> >> > +> Sub-options:
>> >> > +
>> >> > +> `hvm`
>> >> > +
>> >> > +> Default: `false`
>> >> > +
>> >> > +Flag that makes a dom0 boot in PVHv2 mode.
>> >> > +
>> >> > +> `shadow`
>> >> > +
>> >> > +> Default: `false`
>> >> > +
>> >> > +Flag that makes a dom0 use shadow paging.
>> >> 
>> >> Would you mind marking dom0_shadow deprecated at once? In fact
>> >> I wouldn't mind if it was removed from the documentation altogether,
>> >> the more that it still has no description at all.
>> > 
>> > Sure, AFAICT it's just removing it from the documentation and a single 
>> > usage
>> > in construct_dom0_pv (the one in compute_dom0_nr_pages needs to stay for 
>> > PVHv2
>> > Dom0).
>> 
>> Just to avoid any misunderstanding: I talked about documentation
>> only, not about removing anything from code.
> 
> So, you just want to remove the documentation line about dom0_shadow and leave
> the option there?
> 
> It seems kind of pointless to me, the more that a) it's not going to be
> documented and b) AFAIK it's not working.

Well, if it's _provably_ not working, then of course it could be
removed altogether.

Jan


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel