Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 16/17] x86: introduce new defconfigs for PV and HVM

["Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

>>> On 12.10.18 at 17:34, <wei.liu2@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 09:19:45AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> >>> On 04.10.18 at 17:43, <wei.liu2@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > They will be used by build tests.
>> 
>> And is it difficult for the build tests to set these up themselves?
> 
> I specifically said "build tests" but not "CI systems".
> 
> It wouldn't be very difficult for a CI system to generate these files,
> but my idea is that providing these in tree can make things more
> convenient for humans -- developers and maintainers.
> 
> Suppose you want a contributor to test their changes, instead of writing
> "first please generate the following files, and then ...", you just give
> them a rune / some runes to reference these files directly. There
> doesn't need explaining and no ambiguity will arise. And if there is
> disagreement on what work or what doesn't, it would be easy to
> reproduce.
> 
> To me this is a clear win: a small investment that comes with long term
> benefit.

Depends: At least for now I don't see it as an important goal to
avoid breaking the no-PV and no-HVM case (breaking the individual
ones is another thing). Furthermore, saying to someone "Set
HVM=n in your .config" is not a big deal at all.

What I want to avoid is that, once we gain further non-expert
options, (almost) all possible combinations of options end up as
defconfig-s. We don't have no-shadow and bigmem defconfigs,
yet I think we (should) care about not breaking those builds (I
routinely check them every once in a while).

Jan



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