On 12/02/2014 03:09 PM, David Vrabel wrote:
On 02/12/14 13:00, Juergen Gross wrote:
I'd see:
- XEN_PV (selects PARAVIRT, XEN_FRONTEND): be able to run as pv-domain
(x86 only)
Depends on PARAVIRT perhaps?
Chicken and egg problem? :-)
I'd say select, as PARAVIRT isn't a primary function the user wants to
enable, it is a prerequisite for e.g. XEN_PV.
- XEN_PVHVM (selects XEN_FRONTEND): be able to run as hvm-domain with
pv-drivers
- XEN_BACKEND (selects PARAVIRT if x86): be able to run as driver domain
(dom0 or other)
Does not need to select PARAVIRT -- HVM domains can run backends.
Okay.
- XEN_DOM0 (selects PARAVIRT if x86, XEN_BACKEND): be able to run as
dom0
XEN_DOM0 depends on XEN_PV or XEN_PVH (if x86) and whatever ARM needs.
I've removed XEN_PV as XEN_DOM0 shouldn't require XEN_FRONTEND.
We can add XEN_PARAVIRT instead which will be needed by XEN_DOM0 and
XEN_PV and will select PARAVIRT.
- XEN_FRONTEND: be able to run as domU with pv-drivers
It may also be interesting to consider splitting the PV MMU stuff under
a PARAVIRT_MMU option. This might address a reason why people want to
disable PARAVIRT completely.
Okay, seems sensible. Especially regarding XEN_PVH which I've omitted
here.
I'll try to assemble a complete config tree for review before starting
with patches. :-)
Juergen
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
