On 06.05.2025 21:29, Daniel P. Smith wrote: > On 5/2/25 03:21, Jan Beulich wrote: >> On 30.04.2025 20:56, Daniel P. Smith wrote: >>> On 4/29/25 08:36, Alejandro Vallejo wrote: >>>> --- a/xen/common/Makefile >>>> +++ b/xen/common/Makefile >>>> @@ -11,6 +11,7 @@ obj-$(filter-out $(CONFIG_X86),$(CONFIG_ACPI)) += >>>> device.o >>>> obj-$(CONFIG_HAS_DEVICE_TREE) += device-tree/ >>>> obj-$(CONFIG_IOREQ_SERVER) += dm.o >>>> obj-y += domain.o >>>> +obj-$(CONFIG_DOMAIN_BUILDER) += domain-builder/ >>> >>> Please don't do this, use IF_ENABLED in core.c and then hide the >>> unnecessary units in domain-builder/Makefile as I originally had it. >>> This allows for a much easier time incrementally converting the dom0 >>> construction path into a generalized domain construction path. >> >> That is, are you viewing this as a transitional thing only? If the end >> goal is to have it as Alejandro has it above, that may be acceptable >> (even if not nice). > > There is/will be shared domain construction code between dom0-only and > multidomain construction, with it will all living under domain builder. > So no, the end goal is not what Alejandro just did. The end result will > be the way I had it, with a different kconfig option to enable/disable > the multidomain construction path.
Isn't CONFIG_DOMAIN_BUILDER a misnomer then? Jan
