Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v4 7/7] x86: expose CONFIG_HVM

[Wei Liu <wei.liu2@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 06:55:17AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 13.09.18 at 18:38, <wei.liu2@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Signed-off-by: Wei Liu <wei.liu2@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > v4: remove a blank line
> > v3: longer text
> > v2: use tab to indent
> > 
> > Haven't added a dependency on PV_SHIM_EXCLUSIVE because agreement is
> > not yet reached.
> > 
> > CC more people for opinions.
> > 
> > Cc: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: George Dunlap <George.Dunlap@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: Ian Jackson <ian.jackson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: Tim Deegan <tim@xxxxxxx>
> > Cc: Juergen Gross <jgross@xxxxxxxx>
> > 
> > I don't have an opinion here, that's why I didn't reply to previous
> > threads.
> > 
> > Maybe
> > 
> >   def_bool y if !PV_SHIM_EXCLUSIVE
> > 
> > is a good compromise?
> 
> Well, that's the minimum I can live with, but I won't ack a patch without
> the earlier suggested "depends on". However, not need for "if ..." here,
> just using "def_bool !PV_SHIM_EXCLUSIVE" should be quite fine as long
> as there's an always visible prompt.
> 
> Note also that ordering within the various Kconfig* files may matter
> with this approach, at least when processing things sequentially (like
> is happening for the "oldconfig" target, for example): The wrong
> default would probably be suggested if PV_SHIM_EXCLUSIVE has not
> been given a value yet by the time HVM is getting prompted for.

I tried to figure out if there is a well defined model for Kconfig
option processing, but found none.

I don't know what else I can do to unblock this. For now I will just
make a small adjustment.

Wei.

> 
> Jan
> 
> 

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