On 04.08.2025 10:29, Penny, Zheng wrote: > [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 ?
Yes, that's the thought that was circulated, and that I had hoped Stefano would have conveyed. > 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 ? Likely the best route, but that may then mean stepping back a little on SYSCTL, before trying to deal with SYSCTL and maybe PLATFORM_OP (albeit I raised further reservations there). Jan
