[Public]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com>
> Sent: Monday, August 4, 2025 3:41 PM
> To: Penny, Zheng <penny.zh...@amd.com>
> Cc: Huang, Ray <ray.hu...@amd.com>; Andrew Cooper
> <andrew.coop...@citrix.com>; Anthony PERARD <anthony.per...@vates.tech>;
> Orzel, Michal <michal.or...@amd.com>; Julien Grall <jul...@xen.org>; Roger Pau
> Monné <roger....@citrix.com>; Stefano Stabellini <sstabell...@kernel.org>; 
> xen-
> de...@lists.xenproject.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 05/25] xen: introduce CONFIG_DOMCTL
>
> On 03.08.2025 11:47, Penny Zheng wrote:
> > --- a/xen/common/Kconfig
> > +++ b/xen/common/Kconfig
> > @@ -627,6 +627,10 @@ config SYSCTL
> >       This option shall only be disabled on some dom0less systems, or
> >       PV shim on x86, to reduce Xen footprint.
> >
> > +config DOMCTL
> > +   bool "Enable domctl hypercall"
> > +   def_bool y
> > +
>
> Just to re-iterate - we don't think we want things to be this fine-grained.
> (As an aside, nit: "bool" and "def_bool" are partly redundant with one
> another.)
>

Are we suggesting to use one Kconfig, maybe like CONFIG_XENCTL(not a good 
choice, just popping in my head...), to wrap all scenarios, including 
sysctl-op, domctl-op, jiqian's platform-op, etc ? In which case, maybe we still 
submit commits(or features) serie by serie, more easy to review,  but only when 
all is completed, we make this Kconfig as an selectable option ?

> Jan

Reply via email to