On 17/01/2019 11:20, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>> On 16.01.19 at 20:51, <andrew.coop...@citrix.com> wrote: >> On 16/01/2019 11:52, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>>>> On 16.01.19 at 10:00, <andrew.coop...@citrix.com> wrote: >>>> --- a/docs/misc/xen-command-line.pandoc >>>> +++ b/docs/misc/xen-command-line.pandoc >>>> @@ -636,61 +636,83 @@ trace feature is only enabled in debugging builds of >>>> Xen. >>>> >>>> Specify the bit width of the DMA heap. >>>> >>>> -### dom0 (x86) >>>> -> `= List of [ pvh | shadow | verbose ]` >>>> +### dom0 >>>> + = List of [ pvh=<bool>, shadow=<bool>, verbose=<bool> ] >>>> >>>> -> Sub-options: >>>> + Applicability: x86 >>>> >>>> -> `pvh` >>>> +Controls for how dom0 is constructed on x86 systems. >>>> >>>> -> Default: `false` >>>> +* The `pvh` boolean controls whether dom0 is constructed as a PV or a >>>> PVH >>>> + guest. The default is PV. In addition, the following requirements >>>> must >>>> + be met: >>>> >>>> -Flag that makes a dom0 boot in PVHv2 mode. >>>> + * The dom0 kernel selected by the boot loader must be capable of the >>>> + selected mode. >>>> + * For a PV dom0, Xen must have been compiled with `CONFIG_PV` >>>> enabled. >>>> + * For a PVH dom0, Xen must have been compiled with `CONFIG_HVM` >>>> enabled, >>>> + and the hardware must have VT-x/SVM extensions available. >>>> >>>> -> `shadow` >>>> +* The `shadow` boolean is only applicable when dom0 is constructed as a >>>> PVH >>>> + guest, and controls whether dom0 uses hardware assisted paging, or >>>> shadow >>>> + paging. The default is HAP when available, and shadow otherwise. >>>> >>>> -> Default: `false` >>>> + This option is unavailable when `CONFIG_SHADOW_PAGING` is compiled >>>> out. A >>>> + PVH dom0 cannot be used if `CONFIG_SHADOW_PAGING` is compiled out, >>>> and the >>>> + hardware is not HAP-capable. >>> As mentioned elsewhere, I object to adding CONFIG_* into this doc, >>> which is intended to be meaningful to non-developers. But not to the >>> degree of NAK-ing the whole thing, if everyone else disagrees with me. >> I'm not sure what else to say. I object to purposefully omitting >> relevant information from our documentation. > But I'm not asking to omit the information. I'm asking to present it > in a way understandable to anyone, irrespective of their Kconfig > knowledge.
You have literally contradicted yourself in your two replies here. Your latest reply suggests that you didn't mean what you actually wrote earlier. If this is the case, please take more care to get your point across clearly. ~Andrew _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
