On Thu Mar 13, 2025 at 4:24 PM GMT, Jan Beulich wrote: > On 13.03.2025 11:58, Alejandro Vallejo wrote: > > Hi, > > > > On Wed Mar 12, 2025 at 4:06 AM GMT, Penny Zheng wrote: > >> From: Stefano Stabellini <[email protected]> > >> > > > > Commit message? > > > >> Signed-off-by: Stefano Stabellini <[email protected]> > >> Signed-off-by: Sergiy Kibrik <[email protected]> > >> Signed-off-by: Penny Zheng <[email protected]> > >> --- > >> xen/common/Kconfig | 9 +++++++++ > >> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+) > >> > >> diff --git a/xen/common/Kconfig b/xen/common/Kconfig > >> index 6166327f4d..72e1d7ea97 100644 > >> --- a/xen/common/Kconfig > >> +++ b/xen/common/Kconfig > >> @@ -519,6 +519,15 @@ config TRACEBUFFER > >> to be collected at run time for debugging or performance analysis. > >> Memory and execution overhead when not active is minimal. > >> > >> +menu "Supported hypercall interfaces" > >> + visible if EXPERT > > > > Any particular reason for placing it in the middle of the common menu and > > not > > at the end? > > > >> + > >> +config SYSCTL > >> + bool "Enable sysctl hypercall" > > > > meganit: Arguably "sysctl" is a hypercall group rather than a hypercall, so > > "Enable sysctl hypercalls" sounds (subjectively) more appropriate. > > I disagree. I view it as one hypercall with many sub-ops.
One could make the same argument for sysctl and domctl being a single hypercall with different ops. Regardless, nit as it is, I don't think it matters much either way. Cheers, Alejandro
