On 02/09/16 13:26, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>> On 02.09.16 at 14:13, <andrew.coop...@citrix.com> wrote: >> On 02/09/16 13:06, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>>>> On 02.09.16 at 14:01, <wei.l...@citrix.com> wrote: >>>> On Fri, Sep 02, 2016 at 05:56:49AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>>>>>> On 02.09.16 at 13:47, <wei.l...@citrix.com> wrote: >>>>> Since this is a config option - why bother issuing a warning and >>>>> tainting the hypervisor? >>>>> >>>> Because there isn't a clear indicator if gcov is enabled. >>>> >>>> I think it would be valuable to just tell from the backtrace or console >>>> log that gcov is enabled, then we can legitimately refuse to provide >>>> (security) support for such builds. >>> Then perhaps making it match the "debug=" would be the better >>> approach for a feature not controlled on the command line? >> I would prefer not to make it depend on debug= >> >> Coverage on a release hypervisor is equally important, and will be >> different from a debug hypervisor. > I didn't say "depend on", but "match" (which I mean just logging wise). > >> I am on the fence as to whether a taint is right to use, but I do think >> that a "with GCOV" is needed somewhere obvious on the banner line. > Right, hence the matching goal with "debug=".
Ah - I see what you mean. Yes - that would be fine by me. ~Andrew _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
