Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] x86: wrap kexec feature with CONFIG_KEXEC

2015-09-02 Thread Jan Beulich
>>> 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

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] x86: wrap kexec feature with CONFIG_KEXEC

2015-09-02 Thread Andrew Cooper
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

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] x86: wrap kexec feature with CONFIG_KEXEC

2015-09-01 Thread Jonathan Creekmore
"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

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] x86: wrap kexec feature with CONFIG_KEXEC

2015-09-01 Thread Jan Beulich
>>> 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

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] x86: wrap kexec feature with CONFIG_KEXEC

2015-09-01 Thread Andrew Cooper
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

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] x86: wrap kexec feature with CONFIG_KEXEC

2015-09-01 Thread Ian Campbell
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 > > >

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] x86: wrap kexec feature with CONFIG_KEXEC

2015-09-01 Thread Andrew Cooper
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 >>>

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] x86: wrap kexec feature with CONFIG_KEXEC

2015-09-01 Thread Jan Beulich
>>> 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

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] x86: wrap kexec feature with CONFIG_KEXEC

2015-09-01 Thread Jonathan Creekmore
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

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] x86: wrap kexec feature with CONFIG_KEXEC

2015-08-27 Thread Jan Beulich
On 27.08.15 at 17:22, andrew.coop...@citrix.com 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*/

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] x86: wrap kexec feature with CONFIG_KEXEC

2015-08-27 Thread Andrew Cooper
On 27/08/15 16:34, Jan Beulich wrote: On 27.08.15 at 17:22, andrew.coop...@citrix.com 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 */

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] x86: wrap kexec feature with CONFIG_KEXEC

2015-08-27 Thread David Vrabel
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

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] x86: wrap kexec feature with CONFIG_KEXEC

2015-08-27 Thread Jonathan Creekmore
On Aug 27, 2015, at 10:27 AM, David Vrabel david.vra...@citrix.com 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

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] x86: wrap kexec feature with CONFIG_KEXEC

2015-08-27 Thread Jan Beulich
On 27.08.15 at 16:47, jonathan.creekm...@gmail.com 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

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] x86: wrap kexec feature with CONFIG_KEXEC

2015-08-27 Thread Andrew Cooper
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 jonathan.creekm...@gmail.com In

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] x86: wrap kexec feature with CONFIG_KEXEC

2015-08-27 Thread Jan Beulich
On 27.08.15 at 17:27, david.vra...@citrix.com wrote: On 27/08/15 15:47, Jonathan Creekmore wrote: @@ -125,6 +126,22 @@ do {\ cpu_relax();\ }