On 2/28/2018 1:35 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
On 28/02/2018 22:08, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
+obj-$(CONFIG_XEN_PVH) += pvh.o
+obj-$(CONFIG_XEN_PVH) += pvh-head.o
+
Probably a better place for these would be
arch/x86/platform/pvh/{enlighten.c,head.S}. (Just because there are no
.c or .S files
On 2/28/2018 1:35 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
On 28/02/2018 22:08, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
+obj-$(CONFIG_XEN_PVH) += pvh.o
+obj-$(CONFIG_XEN_PVH) += pvh-head.o
+
Probably a better place for these would be
arch/x86/platform/pvh/{enlighten.c,head.S}. (Just because there are no
.c or .S files
On 03/01/2018 03:46 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 01/03/2018 07:11, Juergen Gross wrote:
>>> Probably a better place for these would be
>>> arch/x86/platform/pvh/{enlighten.c,head.S}. (Just because there are no
>>> .c or .S files in arch/x86).
>> Right.
>>
>>> Maybe Xen ought to be moved under
On 03/01/2018 03:46 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 01/03/2018 07:11, Juergen Gross wrote:
>>> Probably a better place for these would be
>>> arch/x86/platform/pvh/{enlighten.c,head.S}. (Just because there are no
>>> .c or .S files in arch/x86).
>> Right.
>>
>>> Maybe Xen ought to be moved under
On 01/03/2018 07:11, Juergen Gross wrote:
>> Probably a better place for these would be
>> arch/x86/platform/pvh/{enlighten.c,head.S}. (Just because there are no
>> .c or .S files in arch/x86).
> Right.
>
>> Maybe Xen ought to be moved under
>> arch/x86/platform too.
> And hyperv and kvm, too?
On 01/03/2018 07:11, Juergen Gross wrote:
>> Probably a better place for these would be
>> arch/x86/platform/pvh/{enlighten.c,head.S}. (Just because there are no
>> .c or .S files in arch/x86).
> Right.
>
>> Maybe Xen ought to be moved under
>> arch/x86/platform too.
> And hyperv and kvm, too?
On 28/02/18 22:35, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 28/02/2018 22:08, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
>> +obj-$(CONFIG_XEN_PVH) += pvh.o
>> +obj-$(CONFIG_XEN_PVH) += pvh-head.o
>> +
>
> Probably a better place for these would be
> arch/x86/platform/pvh/{enlighten.c,head.S}. (Just because there are no
> .c
On 28/02/18 22:35, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 28/02/2018 22:08, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
>> +obj-$(CONFIG_XEN_PVH) += pvh.o
>> +obj-$(CONFIG_XEN_PVH) += pvh-head.o
>> +
>
> Probably a better place for these would be
> arch/x86/platform/pvh/{enlighten.c,head.S}. (Just because there are no
> .c
On 28/02/2018 22:08, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> +obj-$(CONFIG_XEN_PVH) += pvh.o
> +obj-$(CONFIG_XEN_PVH) += pvh-head.o
> +
Probably a better place for these would be
arch/x86/platform/pvh/{enlighten.c,head.S}. (Just because there are no
.c or .S files in arch/x86). Maybe Xen ought to be
On 28/02/2018 22:08, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> +obj-$(CONFIG_XEN_PVH) += pvh.o
> +obj-$(CONFIG_XEN_PVH) += pvh-head.o
> +
Probably a better place for these would be
arch/x86/platform/pvh/{enlighten.c,head.S}. (Just because there are no
.c or .S files in arch/x86). Maybe Xen ought to be
On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 10:27:58AM -0800, Maran Wilson wrote:
> Once hypervisors other than Xen start using the PVH entry point for
> starting VMs, we would like the option of being able to compile PVH entry
> capable kernels without enabling CONFIG_XEN and all the code that comes
> along with
On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 10:27:58AM -0800, Maran Wilson wrote:
> Once hypervisors other than Xen start using the PVH entry point for
> starting VMs, we would like the option of being able to compile PVH entry
> capable kernels without enabling CONFIG_XEN and all the code that comes
> along with
12 matches
Mail list logo
