On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 13:06:14 +0200 Cornelia Huck <coh...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 11:47:05 +0200 > Greg Kurz <gr...@kaod.org> wrote: > > > On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 10:27:37 +0200 > > Cornelia Huck <coh...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > > On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 10:23:04 +0200 > > > Thomas Huth <th...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > > But thinking about this again, I wonder whether it would be enough to > > > > simply check for CONFIG_VIRTIO=y here instead. CONFIG_VIRTIO=y should be > > > > sufficient to assert that there is also at least one kind of virtio > > > > transport available, right? > > > > Otherwise this will look really horrible as soon as somebody also tries > > > > to add support for virtio-mmio here later ;-) > > > > > > > And virtio isn't the only transport for 9p: we also have a Xen backend, > > which happen to be built because targets that support Xen also have > > CONFIG_PCI I guess. > > Only if they also have virtio enabled, no? > Yes, you're right. This is actually the case for i386 and x86_64 targets, which seem to be the only that support Xen. > Should the condition be VIRTFS && (VIRTIO || XEN), then? That's what I was beginning to think as well :)
pgp68Cb6NLn_0.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
