>>> On 01.09.15 at 12:44, <andrew.coop...@citrix.com> 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 which are arch dependent, or >> require specific porting to each arch etc. I think the KEXEC flag is one of >> those. >> >> This keeps the test matrix more reasonable (unlike e.g. Linux's Kconfig) >> and also helps us by ensuring that users are mostly running one of a small >> number of possible configs. >> >> I slightly fear that after Kexec you are going to want to strip out more >> and more stuff... > > I for one welcome a Kconfig style approach. We will never be in the > same order of magnitude of options as Linux, and it will help to > properly modularise the code.
Indeed the idea was brought up a few times already, and I would also welcome such a step (accepting the downside of the larger test matrix). Not the least considering the "no shadow mode" and "big memory" build options that got introduced not so long ago. Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel