On 21.01.2025 19:02, Roger Pau Monné wrote: > On Tue, Jan 21, 2025 at 11:35:42AM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote: >> On 21.01.2025 09:52, Roger Pau Monné wrote: >>> On Tue, Jan 21, 2025 at 09:13:38AM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>> On 21.01.2025 00:27, Stefano Stabellini wrote: >>>>> If I understood it right, I like Andrew's suggestion. He is suggesting >>>>> to do the following: >>>>> >>>>> - turning PV_SHIM_EXCLUSIVE into something that does nothing >>>> >>>> FTAOD - you mean Kconfig-wise? Andrew clearly didn't say "nothing", but >>>> "nothing other than making the boolean be a compile time constant". >>> >>> Won't making the boolean a compile time constant would also result in >>> DCO kicking in and removing a fair amount of code? So even if you >>> have enabled everything in Kconfig, the resulting hypervisor would >>> only be suitable to be used as a shim? >> >> Of course. > > Then what's the point of this approach? Options will be enabled in > Kconfig, but the resulting hypervisor build when using allyesconfig > would have a lot of them short-circuited, making it even worse than > currently? As options will get effectively build-time disabled due > to DCO while enabled in Kconfig.
Well, I have to direct this question to Andrew. It is specifically what I'm trying to address with UNCONSTRAINED. > Overall I think PV_SHIM_EXCLUSIVE should be excluded from > allyesconfig, even with Andrew's proposed change. Otherwise the > purpose of allyesconfig is defeated if enabling PV_SHIM_EXCLUSIVE > makes the resulting hypervisor build PV shim only. IIRC we can > provide a default alllyes.config with CONFIG_PV_SHIM_EXCLUSIVE=n. Hmm, I wasn't aware of the option of using allyes.config. That might be the route to go, albeit it looks like people using the allyesconfig target then need to remember to set KCONFIG_ALLCONFIG in the environment (to <empty> or 1), or to explicitly specify a file name that way. (This of course ought to be easy enough to arrange for in our automation.) Jan
