Re: [PATCH V6 24/24] xen/ioreq: Make the IOREQ feature selectable on Arm

[Oleksandr <olekstysh@xxxxxxxxx>]

On 29.01.21 13:26, Julien Grall wrote:

Hi all

> On 29/01/2021 11:25, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > On 29.01.2021 12:19, Oleksandr wrote:
> > > On 29.01.21 12:06, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Jan, Julien
> > >
> > > > On 29.01.2021 10:55, Julien Grall wrote:
> > > > > > --- a/xen/common/Kconfig
> > > > > > +++ b/xen/common/Kconfig
> > > > > > @@ -137,7 +137,13 @@ config HYPFS_CONFIG
> > > > > >           want to hide the .config contents from dom0.
> > > > > >         config IOREQ_SERVER
> > > > > > -    bool
> > > > > > +    bool "IOREQ support (EXPERT)" if EXPERT && !X86
> > > > > > +    default X86
> > > > > > +    depends on HVM
> > > > > AFAICT, CONFIG_HVM will already select CONFIG_IOREQ_SERVER. So are 
> > > > > the
> > > > > two lines necessary?
> > > > I agree they may not be necessary, but as long as they don't
> > > > cause any harm I thought maybe they serve a documentation
> > > > purpose.
> > > 1. Agree that it should be "If unsure, say N."
> > Faod this could be taken care of while committing.
> >
> > > 2. Agree that two lines are not strictly needed (just rechecked).
> > > 3. Agree that two lines indicates the *real* state:
> > > - Although we managed to remove almost all (all?) HVM-ism in IOREQ
> > > common code, this feature depends on HVM anyway
> > > - And it is should enabled by default on X86, and disabled on Arm
> > >
> > > So what we should do with them (keep or remove)?
> > I'd be fine either way, with just a slight preference to keeping.
> > Julien?
> I find a bit strange, but I am happy to keep it.
>
> Acked-by: Julien Grall <jgrall@xxxxxxxxxx>
Thanks to both of you!

I am wondering do we need to update support.md in the context of IOREQ 
status on Arm right now or this could be postponed?

--
Regards,

Oleksandr Tyshchenko