On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 5:55 AM, David Vrabel <david.vra...@citrix.com> wrote: > On 18/02/15 10:12, Juergen Gross wrote: >> On 02/18/2015 11:03 AM, David Vrabel wrote: >>> On 17/02/15 07:39, Juergen Gross wrote: >>>> >>>> If we have neither XEN_PV nor XEN_PVH set, why do we have to build >>>> enlighten.c? It will never be used. Same should apply to several other >>>> files in arch/x86/xen. >>> >>> Can we limit this series to only Kconfig changes? I don't really like >>> scope-creep in patch series. >> >> Are you sure this is possible? XEN will be configured in more cases as >> today: this is the result of being able to build pv-drivers for hvm >> domains. > > I mean there should be the minimum set of changes need for the Kconfig > refactor to work, but any additional improvements to the build etc. > should be via a different series.
OK I can break down things into two series, one which deals with only Kconfig stuff first, and if that goes well a second one which starts to address some required code changes. Would that be a good step forward? Feedback on the other threads would also be useful. Luis _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
