On 02/09/15 07:53, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 01.09.15 at 19:55, wrote:
>> "Jan Beulich" writes:
>>
>> On 01.09.15 at 16:29, wrote:
>>> Which is both appreciated and understandable. I suppose you
>>> agree though that if you were to follow the model used for the
>>> kexec part, things wou
>>> On 01.09.15 at 19:55, wrote:
> "Jan Beulich" writes:
>
> On 01.09.15 at 16:29, wrote:
>>
>> Which is both appreciated and understandable. I suppose you
>> agree though that if you were to follow the model used for the
>> kexec part, things would quickly become unwieldy. Hence I woul
"Jan Beulich" writes:
On 01.09.15 at 16:29, wrote:
Which is both appreciated and understandable. I suppose you
agree though that if you were to follow the model used for the
kexec part, things would quickly become unwieldy. Hence I would
strongly suggest considering to introduce Linux'es
>>> On 01.09.15 at 16:29, wrote:
> I am not interested in unnecessarily stripping out more and more
> code. However, I do want to reduce the number of features and
> backwards-compatibility code-paths that are compiled into my
> build. Areas like the 32-bit ABI on 64-bit Xen like Andrew
> ment
Andrew Cooper writes:
On 01/09/15 11:54, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 01.09.15 at 12:44, wrote:
On 01/09/15 11:36, Ian Campbell wrote:
In general (i.e. not 100% consistently, I think) we have
tended to avoid making things user-facing compile time
options. Many of the existing CONFIG_* and HAVE_*
On 01/09/15 11:54, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 01.09.15 at 12:44, wrote:
>> On 01/09/15 11:36, Ian Campbell wrote:
>>> In general (i.e. not 100% consistently, I think) we have tended to avoid
>>> making things user-facing compile time options. Many of the existing
>>> CONFIG_* and HAVE_* are really
>>> On 01.09.15 at 12:44, wrote:
> On 01/09/15 11:36, Ian Campbell wrote:
>> In general (i.e. not 100% consistently, I think) we have tended to avoid
>> making things user-facing compile time options. Many of the existing
>> CONFIG_* and HAVE_* are really about things which are arch dependent, or
On 01/09/15 11:36, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Thu, 2015-08-27 at 10:44 -0500, Jonathan Creekmore wrote:
>>> On Aug 27, 2015, at 10:27 AM, David Vrabel
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 27/08/15 15:47, Jonathan Creekmore wrote:
Add the appropriate #if checks around the kexec code in the x86
codebase
On Thu, 2015-08-27 at 10:44 -0500, Jonathan Creekmore wrote:
> >
> > On Aug 27, 2015, at 10:27 AM, David Vrabel
> > wrote:
> >
> > On 27/08/15 15:47, Jonathan Creekmore wrote:
> > > Add the appropriate #if checks around the kexec code in the x86
> > > codebase
> > > so that the feature can act
> On Aug 27, 2015, at 10:27 AM, David Vrabel wrote:
>
> On 27/08/15 15:47, Jonathan Creekmore wrote:
>> Add the appropriate #if checks around the kexec code in the x86 codebase
>> so that the feature can actually be turned off by the flag instead of
>> always required to be enabled on x86.
>
>
On 27/08/15 16:34, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 27.08.15 at 17:22, wrote:
>> On 27/08/15 15:47, Jonathan Creekmore wrote:
>>> @@ -812,7 +816,11 @@ ENTRY(hypercall_args_table)
>>> .byte 2 /* do_hvm_op*/
>>> .byte 1 /* do_sysctl*/ /* 35 */
>>> .byte
>>> On 27.08.15 at 17:27, wrote:
> On 27/08/15 15:47, Jonathan Creekmore wrote:
>> @@ -125,6 +126,22 @@ do {\
>> cpu_relax();\
>> } \
>>> On 27.08.15 at 17:22, wrote:
> On 27/08/15 15:47, Jonathan Creekmore wrote:
>> @@ -812,7 +816,11 @@ ENTRY(hypercall_args_table)
>> .byte 2 /* do_hvm_op*/
>> .byte 1 /* do_sysctl*/ /* 35 */
>> .byte 1 /* do_domctl*/
>> +#ifdef CONF
On 27/08/15 15:47, Jonathan Creekmore wrote:
> Add the appropriate #if checks around the kexec code in the x86 codebase
> so that the feature can actually be turned off by the flag instead of
> always required to be enabled on x86.
What's your use case for this?
I think you should consider provid
On 27/08/15 15:47, Jonathan Creekmore wrote:
> Add the appropriate #if checks around the kexec code in the x86 codebase
> so that the feature can actually be turned off by the flag instead of
> always required to be enabled on x86.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jonathan Creekmore
In principle, this is a goo
>>> On 27.08.15 at 16:47, wrote:
> Add the appropriate #if checks around the kexec code in the x86 codebase
> so that the feature can actually be turned off by the flag instead of
> always required to be enabled on x86.
But you realize that these HAVE_* variables aren't meant to be used
for disab
16 matches
Mail list logo
