[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

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


  • To: "Isaku Yamahata" <yamahata@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • From: "Dong, Eddie" <eddie.dong@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2008 17:19:04 +0800
  • Cc: xen-ia64-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Delivery-date: Fri, 14 Mar 2008 02:19:23 -0700
  • List-id: Discussion of the ia64 port of Xen <xen-ia64-devel.lists.xensource.com>
  • Thread-index: AciFsN7xy3Irhi0zTVuPgayQlS18bAAAMcwg
  • Thread-topic: pv_ops polish: config option & head file

Isaku Yamahata wrote:
> 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.

Great!

> 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.)

Oh, Yes it is in latest tree now:)
> 
> 
>> 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?

Oh, either are OK, just make sure we are in same page. Pleae
keep this here. But we need to make sure generic_defconfig can include
Xen machine vector in current case. Some Makefile/source change 
is needed to include this, I think REDHAT use generic_defconfig.

Thx, eddie

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


 


Rackspace

Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our
servers 24x7x365 and backed by RackSpace's Fanatical Support®.