Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] pvshim: introduce a PV shim defconfig

[Roger Pau Monné <roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 03:46:03AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 22.08.18 at 12:36, <roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/xen/arch/x86/configs/pvshim_defconfig
> > @@ -0,0 +1,23 @@
> > +# Enable PV shim mode
> > +CONFIG_PV=y
> > +CONFIG_XEN_GUEST=y
> > +CONFIG_PVH_GUEST=y
> > +CONFIG_PV_SHIM=y
> > +CONFIG_PV_SHIM_EXCLUSIVE=y
> > +# Disable features not used by the PV shim
> > +CONFIG_NR_CPUS=32
> > +CONFIG_SHADOW_PAGING=n
> > +CONFIG_BIGMEM=n
> > +CONFIG_HVM_FEP=n
> > +CONFIG_TBOOT=n
> > +CONFIG_KEXEC=n
> > +CONFIG_TMEM=n
> > +CONFIG_XENOPROF=n
> > +CONFIG_XSM=n
> > +CONFIG_SCHED_CREDIT2=n
> > +CONFIG_SCHED_RTDS=n
> > +CONFIG_SCHED_ARINC653=n
> > +CONFIG_SCHED_NULL=n
> > +CONFIG_LIVEPATCH=n
> > +CONFIG_SUPPRESS_DUPLICATE_SYMBOL_WARNINGS=n
> > +CONFIG_DEBUG=n
> 
> Since the *defconfig-s we have so far are all empty, and since the
> Linux x86 ones aren't written this way I wonder: Is there a reason
> you use "=n" instead of the "# CONFIG_... is not set" form?

My personal preference is to explicitly set them to =n, I think it's
clearer. Using "# CONFIG_FOO is not set" looks to me like "CONFIG_FOO
will be using the default value". In any case, I've changed this to
use the 'is not set' form and will resend shortly.

Thanks, Roger.

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel