On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 11:47:05 +0200
Greg Kurz <gr...@kaod.org> wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 10:27:37 +0200
> Cornelia Huck <coh...@redhat.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 10:23:04 +0200
> > Thomas Huth <th...@redhat.com> wrote:
> > > But thinking about this again, I wonder whether it would be enough to
> > > simply check for CONFIG_VIRTIO=y here instead. CONFIG_VIRTIO=y should be
> > > sufficient to assert that there is also at least one kind of virtio
> > > transport available, right?
> > > Otherwise this will look really horrible as soon as somebody also tries
> > > to add support for virtio-mmio here later ;-)
> And virtio isn't the only transport for 9p: we also have a Xen backend,
> which happen to be built because targets that support Xen also have
> CONFIG_PCI I guess.
Only if they also have virtio enabled, no?
Should the condition be VIRTFS && (VIRTIO || XEN), then?