On 22.05.2025 20:08, dm...@proton.me wrote: > On Thu, May 22, 2025 at 09:01:51AM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote: >> On 22.05.2025 02:09, dm...@proton.me wrote: >>> On Wed, May 21, 2025 at 09:31:34AM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>> On 21.05.2025 02:00, dm...@proton.me wrote: >>>>> --- a/xen/common/Kconfig >>>>> +++ b/xen/common/Kconfig >>>>> @@ -576,4 +576,11 @@ config BUDDY_ALLOCATOR_SIZE >>>>> Amount of memory reserved for the buddy allocator to serve Xen heap, >>>>> working alongside the colored one. >>>>> >>>>> +config MAX_DOMID >>>>> + int "Maximum number of user domains" >>>>> + range 1 32752 >>>>> + default 32752 >>>>> + help >>>>> + Specifies the maximum number of domains a user can create. >>>> >>>> My prior comment remains: The description and help needs to be accurate, in >>>> order to not cause any confusion. In a true dom0less environment I'm not >>>> sure the "user" can create any domains (post boot, that is). And when there >>>> is Dom0 (or late hwdom), the number specified already isn't the number of >>>> domains one can create (again, post boot, which is how I understand "user >>>> domains"). If someone picked 1 as the value here, it's unclear to me how >>>> late hwdom or dom0less would work in the first place. >>> >>> Do you think something like the following will be more accurate? >>> >>> config MAX_DOMID >>> int "Maximum number of domains" >>> range 1 32752 >>> default 32752 >>> help >>> Specifies the maximum number of domains: dom0 or late hwdom, >>> predefined domains, post-boot domains, excluding Xen system domains >>> (domid >= DOMID_FIRST_RESERVED). >> >> Especially the mention of DOMID_FIRST_RESERVED is too much of an >> implementation >> detail here, imo. Beyond that - maybe, but I'm not overly happy this way >> either. > > Will the following description will be satisfactory? > > config MAX_DOMID > int "Maximum domain ID" > range 1 32752 > default 32752 > help > Specifies the maximum domain ID (dom0 or late hwdom, predefined > domains, post-boot domains, excluding Xen system domains).
This is better, yes, yet ... >> As an aside - MAX_DOMID and "Maximum number of domains" are conflicting >> with one another, too: Do you mean "maximum ID" or "maximum number of"? The >> two >> are different by 1. > > That would be "maximum ID", thank you. ... imo asking for "maximum" of something is perhaps a little odd. Asking for "number of" is the more usual thing imo. Yet as before - I remain unconvinced we need such a Kconfig setting in the first place. Jan
