On 01/10/2012 05:44 AM, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Jan 2012, Andrew Jones wrote:
>> I guess if we did the s/XEN_DOM0/LOCAL_APIC && IO_APIC && ACPI/ in
>> arch/x86/pci/xen.c it would be pretty easy to review for equivalence.
>> Then keep CONFIG_PRIVILIGED, but drop XEN_DOM0 from everywher
- Original Message -
> On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 12:19:11PM -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
> wrote:
> > > > If the root complaint is that "customers think that anything
> > > > set in
> > > > .config is a supported feature", then the solutions are to
> > > > support
> > > > all
> > > > the fe
On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 12:19:11PM -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> > > If the root complaint is that "customers think that anything set in
> > > .config is a supported feature", then the solutions are to support
> > > all
> > > the features in .config, re-educate the customers that they're wr
> > If the root complaint is that "customers think that anything set in
> > .config is a supported feature", then the solutions are to support
> > all
> > the features in .config, re-educate the customers that they're wrong,
> > or
> > maintain a local patch to do this stuff.
>
> If only re-educat
- Original Message -
> On 01/10/2012 05:44 AM, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > On Mon, 9 Jan 2012, Andrew Jones wrote:
> >> I guess if we did the s/XEN_DOM0/LOCAL_APIC && IO_APIC && ACPI/ in
> >> arch/x86/pci/xen.c it would be pretty easy to review for
> >> equivalence.
> >> Then keep CONFI
On Mon, 9 Jan 2012, Andrew Jones wrote:
> I guess if we did the s/XEN_DOM0/LOCAL_APIC && IO_APIC && ACPI/ in
> arch/x86/pci/xen.c it would be pretty easy to review for equivalence.
> Then keep CONFIG_PRIVILIGED, but drop XEN_DOM0 from everywhere else and
> compile in the 3 files. I don't think it m
On Mon, 9 Jan 2012, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 09, 2012 at 04:12:10PM +, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > On Mon, 9 Jan 2012, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jan 09, 2012 at 11:39:44AM +, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > > > I don't think we should add "PCI_XEN && SWIOT
- Original Message -
> On Mon, Jan 09, 2012 at 04:12:10PM +, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > On Mon, 9 Jan 2012, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jan 09, 2012 at 11:39:44AM +, Stefano Stabellini
> > > wrote:
> > > > I don't think we should add "PCI_XEN && SWIOTLB_XEN &&
>
- Original Message -
> On Mon, 9 Jan 2012, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 09, 2012 at 11:39:44AM +, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > > I don't think we should add "PCI_XEN && SWIOTLB_XEN &&
> > > X86_LOCAL_APIC &&
> > > X86_IO_APIC && ACPI && PCI" to XEN either.
> > > Howev
On Mon, Jan 09, 2012 at 04:12:10PM +, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Jan 2012, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 09, 2012 at 11:39:44AM +, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > > I don't think we should add "PCI_XEN && SWIOTLB_XEN && X86_LOCAL_APIC &&
> > > X86_IO_APIC && ACPI &&
On Mon, 9 Jan 2012, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 09, 2012 at 11:39:44AM +, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > I don't think we should add "PCI_XEN && SWIOTLB_XEN && X86_LOCAL_APIC &&
> > X86_IO_APIC && ACPI && PCI" to XEN either.
> > However it should be possible to add only the right
On Mon, Jan 09, 2012 at 11:39:44AM +, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Jan 2012, Andrew Jones wrote:
> > - Original Message -
> > > On Fri, 6 Jan 2012, Andrew Jones wrote:
> > > > XEN_DOM0 is a silent option that has been automatically selected
> > > > when
> > > > CONFIG_XEN is se
On Mon, 9 Jan 2012, Andrew Jones wrote:
> - Original Message -
> > On Fri, 6 Jan 2012, Andrew Jones wrote:
> > > XEN_DOM0 is a silent option that has been automatically selected
> > > when
> > > CONFIG_XEN is selected since 6b0661a5e6fbf. If this option was
> > > changed
> > > to a menu con
- Original Message -
> On Fri, 6 Jan 2012, Andrew Jones wrote:
> > XEN_DOM0 is a silent option that has been automatically selected
> > when
> > CONFIG_XEN is selected since 6b0661a5e6fbf. If this option was
> > changed
> > to a menu configurable option then it would only give users the
>
On Fri, 2012-01-06 at 16:39 +, Andrew Jones wrote:
> remove XEN_PRIVILEGED_GUEST as it's just an alias for XEN_DOM0.
Hmm, this one is used by tools like update-grub to know when it is ok to
create xen+kernel entries so I think it needs to stay, or we at least
need to give lengthly warning to d
15 matches
Mail list logo