On 12.06.2025 06:35, Penny, Zheng wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com> >> Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2025 9:05 PM >> >> On 28.05.2025 11:16, Penny Zheng wrote: >>> From: Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabell...@amd.com> >>> >>> We introduce a new Kconfig CONFIG_SYSCTL, which shall only be disabled >>> on some dom0less systems or PV shim on x86, to reduce Xen footprint. >>> >>> Making SYSCTL without prompt is transient and it will be fixed in the >>> final >> >> Nit: s/fixed/adjusted/ ? It's not a bug, after all. > > Understood.
At the risk of being overly blunt - did you really? You use ... >>> patch. Also, we will also state unsetting SYSCTL in pvshim_defconfig >>> to explicitly make it unavailable for PV shim in the final patch. >> >> Even without the double "also" this reads odd. But it's also unclear what it >> has to do >> here, nor whether what is being said is actually correct. > > Hmmm, How about " > The consequences of introducing "CONFIG_SYSCTL=y" in .config file generated > from pvshim_defconfig > is transient and will be also fixed in the final." ... "fixed" again right away, in the same misleading way. Apart from this - yes, this wording is quite a bit better. >>> --- a/xen/common/Kconfig >>> +++ b/xen/common/Kconfig >>> @@ -579,4 +579,15 @@ config BUDDY_ALLOCATOR_SIZE >>> Amount of memory reserved for the buddy allocator to serve Xen heap, >>> working alongside the colored one. >>> >>> +menu "Supported hypercall interfaces" >>> + visible if EXPERT >>> + >>> +config SYSCTL >>> + bool "Enable sysctl hypercall" >>> + def_bool y >> >> Why def_bool when you already have bool on the earlier line? >> > > Ack, then here maybe a simple > " > config SYSCTL > def_bool y > " > is enough. Indeed; see my later reply on this same topic. Jan
