[Public] > -----Original Message----- > From: Jan Beulich <[email protected]> > Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2025 8:44 PM > To: Penny, Zheng <[email protected]> > Cc: Huang, Ray <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Stefano > Stabellini <[email protected]>; Julien Grall <[email protected]>; Bertrand > Marquis <[email protected]>; Orzel, Michal <[email protected]>; > Volodymyr Babchuk <[email protected]>; Andrew Cooper > <[email protected]>; Anthony PERARD <[email protected]>; > Roger Pau Monné <[email protected]>; Shawn Anastasio > <[email protected]>; Alistair Francis > <[email protected]>; > Bob Eshleman <[email protected]>; Connor Davis > <[email protected]>; Tamas K Lengyel <[email protected]>; xen- > [email protected] > Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 15/28] xen/domctl: wrap domain_kill() with > CONFIG_MGMT_HYPERCALLS > > On 13.10.2025 12:15, Penny Zheng wrote: > > --- a/xen/arch/x86/mm/mem_sharing.c > > +++ b/xen/arch/x86/mm/mem_sharing.c > > @@ -1396,6 +1396,7 @@ int __mem_sharing_unshare_page(struct domain *d, > > return rc; > > } > > > > +#ifdef CONFIG_MGMT_HYPERCALLS > > int relinquish_shared_pages(struct domain *d) { > > int rc = 0; > > @@ -1452,6 +1453,7 @@ int relinquish_shared_pages(struct domain *d) > > p2m_unlock(p2m); > > return rc; > > } > > +#endif /* CONFIG_MGMT_HYPERCALLS */ > > > > static int range_share(struct domain *d, struct domain *cd, > > struct mem_sharing_op_range *range) > > Is this necessary? Shouldn't MEM_SHARING as a whole become dependent upon > MGMT_HYPERCALLS, then also covering XENMEM_sharing_op? (The same will > already implicitly happen for MEM_PAGING, due to its VM_EVENT dependency.) >
Yes, Since I didn't see VM_EVENT dependency for MEM_SHARING. I'm not 100% sure that whether memory sharing feature is dependent on VM_EVENT. Also as I roughly look through the codes in mm/mem_sharing.c, maybe only mem_sharing_notify_enomem() utilizes vm event subsystem. > Jan
