On Thu, 26 Feb 2015, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 11:19:17AM +, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > On Wed, 25 Feb 2015, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > > On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 12:01:31PM +, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 24 Feb 2015, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > >
On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 11:19:17AM +, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Feb 2015, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 12:01:31PM +, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > > On Tue, 24 Feb 2015, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 7:21 AM, Stefano Stabellini
On Wed, 25 Feb 2015, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 12:01:31PM +, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > On Tue, 24 Feb 2015, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > > On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 7:21 AM, Stefano Stabellini
> > > wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 23 Feb 2015, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > > >
On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 02:27:08PM +, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Feb 2015, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > On Tue, 24 Feb 2015, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > > On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 7:21 AM, Stefano Stabellini
> > > wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 23 Feb 2015, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > >
>
> I see no way then in which init_hvm_pv_info() would be called for XEN_PV
> and XEN_PVH. In fact should we not be able to just BUG_ON(xen_pv_domain())
> above?
/me nods.
___
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
http://lists.xen.org/xen-de
On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 12:01:31PM +, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Feb 2015, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 7:21 AM, Stefano Stabellini
> > wrote:
> > > On Mon, 23 Feb 2015, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > >> On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 3:43 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez
> >
On Wed, 25 Feb 2015, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Feb 2015, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 7:21 AM, Stefano Stabellini
> > wrote:
> > > On Mon, 23 Feb 2015, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > >> On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 3:43 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez
> > >> wrote:
> > >> > O
On Tue, 24 Feb 2015, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 7:21 AM, Stefano Stabellini
> wrote:
> > On Mon, 23 Feb 2015, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> >> On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 3:43 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> >> > On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 9:29 AM, David Vrabel
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 7:21 AM, Stefano Stabellini
wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Feb 2015, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
>> On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 3:43 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
>> > On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 9:29 AM, David Vrabel
>> > wrote:
>> >> On 12/12/14 13:17, Juergen Gross wrote:
>> >>> XEN_PVHVM
>
On Mon, 23 Feb 2015, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 3:43 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 9:29 AM, David Vrabel
> > wrote:
> >> On 12/12/14 13:17, Juergen Gross wrote:
> >>> XEN_PVHVM
> >>
> >> Move XEN_PVHVM under XEN and have it select PARAVIRT and P
On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 9:29 AM, David Vrabel wrote:
> On 12/12/14 13:17, Juergen Gross wrote:
>> XEN_PVHVM
>
> Move XEN_PVHVM under XEN and have it select PARAVIRT and PARAVIRT_CLOCK.
FWIW, although it seems we do not want to let users just build
XEN_PVHVM hypervisors I have the changes required
On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 2:51 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez
wrote:
>>> >> > XEN_PLATFORM_PCI
>>> >
>>> > definitely x86 only
>>>
>>> All?
>>
>> only XEN_PLATFORM_PCI
>
> Updated.
Then again commit 5fbdc10395cd500d6ff844825a918c4e6f38de37 removed
this so its no longer relevant as its all folded under XEN_
On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 05:41:42AM +0100, Juergen Gross wrote:
> On 02/09/2015 08:52 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 09, 2015 at 07:17:23AM +0100, Juergen Gross wrote:
>>> On 02/07/2015 12:44 AM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
After some feedback for the first draft I'd suggest the follo
On 02/09/2015 08:52 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
On Mon, Feb 09, 2015 at 07:17:23AM +0100, Juergen Gross wrote:
On 02/07/2015 12:44 AM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
After some feedback for the first draft I'd suggest the following:
Option Selects Depends
--
On Mon, Feb 09, 2015 at 07:17:23AM +0100, Juergen Gross wrote:
> On 02/07/2015 12:44 AM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
>> After some feedback for the first draft I'd suggest the following:
>>
>> Option Selects Depends
>> --
On 02/07/2015 12:44 AM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
This is a third respin for a design proposal for a rework on the config options
on the Linux kernel related to Xen. The frist two proposals came from Juergen,
I'm taking on the work now as some other work I am doing is related to this.
This third i
On Sat, 7 Feb 2015, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> This is a third respin for a design proposal for a rework on the config
> options
> on the Linux kernel related to Xen. The frist two proposals came from Juergen,
> I'm taking on the work now as some other work I am doing is related to this.
> This th
On Fri, 6 Feb 2015, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 4:07 AM, Stefano Stabellini
> wrote:
> > On Thu, 5 Feb 2015, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> >> On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 6:57 AM, Stefano Stabellini
> >> wrote:
> >> > On Wed, 4 Feb 2015, David Vrabel wrote:
> >> >> On 16/12/14 16:21,
This is a third respin for a design proposal for a rework on the config options
on the Linux kernel related to Xen. The frist two proposals came from Juergen,
I'm taking on the work now as some other work I am doing is related to this.
This third iteration addresses the feedback given on Juergen's
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 5:28 AM, Ian Campbell wrote:
> In your list do the options which come under XEN or XEN_FRONTEND depend
> on the respective headline config option?
An indentation reflects a dependency on the above option.
Luis
___
Xen-devel ma
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 5:28 AM, Ian Campbell wrote:
> Could you annotate (maybe not a new column, perhaps with a * or
> something) which options are supposed to be user-visible vs purely
> internal things which can be selected?
All options listed will be user selectable unless otherwise noted wi
On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 6:57 AM, Stefano Stabellini
wrote:
> Given that there is no CONFIG_PV or CONFIG_PVH or even CONFIG_PVHVM on
> arm and arm64
I'll update CONFIG_XEN_PVHVM to be x86 specific, it already depends on
X86_LOCAL_APIC, so just updating it on the proposal to annotate it is
x86 speci
On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 4:07 AM, Stefano Stabellini
wrote:
> On Thu, 5 Feb 2015, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 6:57 AM, Stefano Stabellini
>> wrote:
>> > On Wed, 4 Feb 2015, David Vrabel wrote:
>> >> On 16/12/14 16:21, Juergen Gross wrote:
>> >> > Hi,
>> >> >
>> >> > This is a
On Thu, 5 Feb 2015, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 6:57 AM, Stefano Stabellini
> wrote:
> > On Wed, 4 Feb 2015, David Vrabel wrote:
> >> On 16/12/14 16:21, Juergen Gross wrote:
> >> > Hi,
> >> >
> >> > This is a design proposal for a rework of the config options on the
> >> > Li
On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 6:57 AM, Stefano Stabellini
wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Feb 2015, David Vrabel wrote:
>> On 16/12/14 16:21, Juergen Gross wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > This is a design proposal for a rework of the config options on the
>> > Linux kernel which are related to Xen.
>> >
>> > The need to do
On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 12:29 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 04.02.15 at 01:48, wrote:
>> So as I see it XEN_BALLOON should depend on XEN_PV || XEN_PVH -- not
>> sure how ballooning would be used on HVM only domains although right
>> now ballooning would indeed be initialized in such situations, s
On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 3:59 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez
wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 8:58 PM, Juergen Gross wrote:
>> On 02/04/2015 01:48 AM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
>XEN_MAX_DOMAIN_MEMORY(x86)
which depends on XEN_PV
>>>
>>>
>>> Adjusted, but so far that's the only XEN_PV al
On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 8:58 PM, Juergen Gross wrote:
> On 02/04/2015 01:48 AM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
XEN_MAX_DOMAIN_MEMORY(x86)
>>>
>>>
>>> which depends on XEN_PV
>>
>>
>> Adjusted, but so far that's the only XEN_PV alone-dependent option.
>> Are you sure ? This defines MAX_DOMAIN_PAGE
On Wed, 4 Feb 2015, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Wed, 2015-02-04 at 14:57 +, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > On Wed, 4 Feb 2015, David Vrabel wrote:
> > > On 16/12/14 16:21, Juergen Gross wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > This is a design proposal for a rework of the config options on the
> > > > L
On Wed, 2015-02-04 at 14:57 +, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Feb 2015, David Vrabel wrote:
> > On 16/12/14 16:21, Juergen Gross wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > This is a design proposal for a rework of the config options on the
> > > Linux kernel which are related to Xen.
> > >
> > > The
On Wed, 4 Feb 2015, David Vrabel wrote:
> On 16/12/14 16:21, Juergen Gross wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > This is a design proposal for a rework of the config options on the
> > Linux kernel which are related to Xen.
> >
> > The need to do so arose from the fact that it is currently not
> > possible to b
On 16/12/14 16:21, Juergen Gross wrote:
> Hi,
>
> This is a design proposal for a rework of the config options on the
> Linux kernel which are related to Xen.
>
> The need to do so arose from the fact that it is currently not
> possible to build the Xen frontend drivers for a non-pvops kernel,
>
>>> On 04.02.15 at 01:48, wrote:
> So as I see it XEN_BALLOON should depend on XEN_PV || XEN_PVH -- not
> sure how ballooning would be used on HVM only domains although right
> now ballooning would indeed be initialized in such situations, should
> it not? If it should not then the above check sho
On 02/04/2015 01:48 AM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
I'm going to work on this now so my replies below.
Note: If we want feature to require XEN_PV || XEN_PVH || XEN_PVHVM,
since XEN_BACKEND depends on them I think we could just use
XEN_BACKEND as a shorthand. Furthermore if we then wanted something
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 5:59 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 19.01.15 at 14:28, wrote:
>> I think it is still the case that selecting an option which is user
>> visible is frowned upon?
>
> I don't think so; iirc there are cases where things deliberately get
> set up that way (for example library
I'm going to work on this now so my replies below.
Note: If we want feature to require XEN_PV || XEN_PVH || XEN_PVHVM,
since XEN_BACKEND depends on them I think we could just use
XEN_BACKEND as a shorthand. Furthermore if we then wanted something to
be available for both backend and frontend we co
>>> On 19.01.15 at 14:28, wrote:
> I think it is still the case that selecting an option which is user
> visible is frowned upon?
I don't think so; iirc there are cases where things deliberately get
set up that way (for example library code that is explicitly meant
to be available also to out-of-
On Tue, 2014-12-16 at 17:21 +0100, Juergen Gross wrote:
> Option Selects Depends
> --
Could you annotate (maybe not a new column, perhaps with a * or
something) which options are supposed t
On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 05:21:05PM +0100, Juergen Gross wrote:
> Hi,
>
> This is a design proposal for a rework of the config options on the
> Linux kernel which are related to Xen.
>
> The need to do so arose from the fact that it is currently not
> possible to build the Xen frontend drivers for
Hi,
This is a design proposal for a rework of the config options on the
Linux kernel which are related to Xen.
The need to do so arose from the fact that it is currently not
possible to build the Xen frontend drivers for a non-pvops kernel,
e.g. to run them in a HVM-domain. There are more drawba
On Fri, 12 Dec 2014, David Vrabel wrote:
> On 12/12/14 13:17, Juergen Gross wrote:
> >
> >
> > As a first draft I'd suggest the following:
>
> Some rough thoughts below.
>
> > Option Selects Depends
> > ---
On 12/12/2014 06:29 PM, David Vrabel wrote:
On 12/12/14 13:17, Juergen Gross wrote:
As a first draft I'd suggest the following:
Some rough thoughts below.
Option Selects Depends
--
On 12/12/2014 05:44 PM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 02:17:27PM +0100, Juergen Gross wrote:
Hi,
This is a design proposal for a rework of the config options on the
Linux kernel which are related to Xen.
The need to do so arose from the fact that it is currently not
poss
On 12/12/14 13:17, Juergen Gross wrote:
>
>
> As a first draft I'd suggest the following:
Some rough thoughts below.
> Option Selects Depends
> --
> XEN SWIOT
On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 02:17:27PM +0100, Juergen Gross wrote:
> Hi,
>
> This is a design proposal for a rework of the config options on the
> Linux kernel which are related to Xen.
>
> The need to do so arose from the fact that it is currently not
> possible to build the Xen frontend drivers for
Hi,
This is a design proposal for a rework of the config options on the
Linux kernel which are related to Xen.
The need to do so arose from the fact that it is currently not
possible to build the Xen frontend drivers for a non-pvops kernel,
e.g. to run them in a HVM-domain. There are more drawba
46 matches
Mail list logo
