Re: [PATCH v1 01/19] xen: introduce CONFIG_SYSCTL

["Alejandro Vallejo" <alejandro.vallejo@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu Mar 13, 2025 at 4:24 PM GMT, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 13.03.2025 11:58, Alejandro Vallejo wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > On Wed Mar 12, 2025 at 4:06 AM GMT, Penny Zheng wrote:
> >> From: Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@xxxxxxx>
> >>
> > 
> > Commit message?
> > 
> >> Signed-off-by: Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@xxxxxxx>
> >> Signed-off-by: Sergiy Kibrik <Sergiy_Kibrik@xxxxxxxx>
> >> Signed-off-by: Penny Zheng <Penny.Zheng@xxxxxxx>
> >> ---
> >>  xen/common/Kconfig | 9 +++++++++
> >>  1 file changed, 9 insertions(+)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/xen/common/Kconfig b/xen/common/Kconfig
> >> index 6166327f4d..72e1d7ea97 100644
> >> --- a/xen/common/Kconfig
> >> +++ b/xen/common/Kconfig
> >> @@ -519,6 +519,15 @@ config TRACEBUFFER
> >>      to be collected at run time for debugging or performance analysis.
> >>      Memory and execution overhead when not active is minimal.
> >>  
> >> +menu "Supported hypercall interfaces"
> >> +  visible if EXPERT
> > 
> > Any particular reason for placing it in the middle of the common menu and 
> > not
> > at the end?
> > 
> >> +
> >> +config SYSCTL
> >> +  bool "Enable sysctl hypercall"
> > 
> > meganit: Arguably "sysctl" is a hypercall group rather than a hypercall, so
> > "Enable sysctl hypercalls" sounds (subjectively) more appropriate.
>
> I disagree. I view it as one hypercall with many sub-ops.

One could make the same argument for sysctl and domctl being a single hypercall 
with different ops.

Regardless, nit as it is, I don't think it matters much either way.

Cheers,
Alejandro