On 17.04.2025 18:18, Alejandro Vallejo wrote: > On Thu Apr 17, 2025 at 4:00 PM BST, Jan Beulich wrote: >> On 17.04.2025 14:48, Alejandro Vallejo wrote: >>> --- /dev/null >>> +++ b/xen/common/domain-builder/Kconfig >>> @@ -0,0 +1,18 @@ >>> + >>> +menu "Domain Builder Features" >>> +depends on HAS_BOOT_INFO >> >> That is, what's going to further be added here will not ... >> >>> +config DOMAIN_BUILDER >> >> ...depend on this, but just on HAS_BOOT_INFO? Seems not very likely, but >> I'll be looking forward to learn what the plans are. > > CONFIG_HAS_BOOT_INFO has nothing to do with future plans. The domain > builder is tightly integrated with the boot_info infrastructure and > cannot be used (or linked) unless the arch-specific definitions are > present. It cannot function without it. And this movement from arch/ to > common/ forces this new Kconfig to gate core.c on boot_info existing > (because it's in asm/bootinfo.h atm). I _COULD_ also move the boot_info > elsewhere, but without a drive to actually use it, that seems a bit > pointless. > > HAS_BOOT_INFO && !DOMAIN_BUILDER still links core.c, because that > contains the common initialiser for boot_info.
Which, as voiced earlier, I have reservations against. The entire domain-builder/ sub-tree would imo better not be recursed into when DOMAIN_BUILDER=n. Jan
