On 24.09.2025 09:11, Penny, Zheng wrote: > [Public] > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Jan Beulich <[email protected]> >> Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2025 11:09 PM >> To: Penny, Zheng <[email protected]> >> Cc: Huang, Ray <[email protected]>; Andrew Cooper >> <[email protected]>; Anthony PERARD <[email protected]>; >> Orzel, Michal <[email protected]>; Julien Grall <[email protected]>; Roger >> Pau >> Monné <[email protected]>; Stefano Stabellini <[email protected]>; >> xen- >> [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 07/26] xen/domctl: wrap >> domain_pause_by_systemcontroller() with MGMT_HYPERCALLS >> >> On 10.09.2025 09:38, Penny Zheng wrote: >>> --- a/xen/common/domain.c >>> +++ b/xen/common/domain.c >>> @@ -1606,10 +1606,12 @@ static int >> _domain_pause_by_systemcontroller(struct domain *d, bool sync) >>> return 0; >>> } >>> >>> +#ifdef CONFIG_MGMT_HYPERCALLS >>> int domain_pause_by_systemcontroller(struct domain *d) { >>> return _domain_pause_by_systemcontroller(d, true /* sync */); } >>> +#endif /* CONFIG_MGMT_HYPERCALLS */ >>> >>> int domain_pause_by_systemcontroller_nosync(struct domain *d) >>> { >> >> I would have ack-ed this if there was only this part, but ... >> >>> --- a/xen/common/domctl.c >>> +++ b/xen/common/domctl.c >>> @@ -390,11 +390,13 @@ long >> do_domctl(XEN_GUEST_HANDLE_PARAM(xen_domctl_t) u_domctl) >>> break; >>> } >>> >>> +#ifdef CONFIG_MGMT_HYPERCALLS >>> case XEN_DOMCTL_pausedomain: >>> ret = -EINVAL; >>> if ( d != current->domain ) >>> ret = domain_pause_by_systemcontroller(d); >>> break; >>> +#endif /* CONFIG_MGMT_HYPERCALLS */ >>> >>> case XEN_DOMCTL_unpausedomain: >>> ret = domain_unpause_by_systemcontroller(d); >> >> ... as expressed elsewhere I'm not happy about this one, as it'll need >> undoing in a later patch of this same series. >> > > I shall admit that this kind of stub really helps me test MGMT_HYPERCALLS=n > for this big serie commit by commit at the very beginning. Otherwise, it > could be only disabled (and tested) in the end, and accumulate the mistakes... > But, as you said, all this transient thing needs to be reversed in the last, > and I could accidently missing something and leave dead code... > As CONFIG_SYSCTL is already a prompt option, then maybe I need to raise a new > commit to make it as def_bool again only for this patch serie transiently or > just address it in " xen/sysctl: replace CONFIG_SYSCTL with > CONFIG_MGMT_DOMCTL " ?
Removing the prompt again (whether in a separate patch or in the renaming one I wouldn't care much) was what I suggested from the very beginning, but which also is what faced Stefano's opposition. Jan
