On Fri, 22 May 2026 21:00:00 +0200 Jürgen Groß <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 22.05.26 20:54, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > On Fri, May 22, 2026, at 17:46, Juergen Gross wrote: > >> On 22.05.26 16:19, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > >>> > >>> --- a/arch/x86/xen/Kconfig > >>> +++ b/arch/x86/xen/Kconfig > >>> @@ -10,8 +10,7 @@ config XEN > >>> select X86_HV_CALLBACK_VECTOR > >>> select HIBERNATE_CALLBACKS > >>> depends on X86_64 || (X86_32 && X86_PAE) > >>> - depends on X86_64 || (X86_GENERIC || MPENTIUM4 || MATOM) > >>> - depends on X86_LOCAL_APIC && X86_TSC > >>> + depends on X86_LOCAL_APIC > >> > >> This is problematic. See commit 93cd05976498. > >> > >> Maybe use "depends on X86_LOCAL_APIC && X86_L1_CACHE_SHIFT >= 6" instead? > > > > After patch 6/8, this is always true, so I suppose it would > > if that came first, right? > > Yes, agreed. > > > > > On a related note, are there still remaining Xen users on new > > 32-bit guest kernels? I understand that one could still run > > modern kernels on 32-bit Xen-4.2 (EOL in 2015), and that 64-bit > > Xen still supports older 32-bit guest operating systems for > > compatibility, but I'm not sure if there is any reason to > > legitimately run a 32-bit linux-7.x kernel on a 64-bit Xen > > instead of running a better supported 64-bit guest kernel. > > From the logical point of view I totally agree. OTOH users are humans, > so they might not agree with that. ;-) You might just want to test a 32bit kernel ? -- David > > > Juergen
