>>> On 30.08.18 at 09:42, <wei.l...@citrix.com> wrote: > On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 04:50:21AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote: >> >>> On 26.08.18 at 14:19, <wei.l...@citrix.com> wrote: >> > --- a/xen/arch/x86/mm/paging.c >> > +++ b/xen/arch/x86/mm/paging.c >> > @@ -919,6 +919,7 @@ const struct paging_mode *paging_get_mode(struct vcpu > *v) >> > return paging_get_nestedmode(v); >> > } >> > >> > +#ifdef CONFIG_HVM >> > void paging_update_nestedmode(struct vcpu *v) >> > { >> > ASSERT(nestedhvm_enabled(v->domain)); >> > @@ -930,6 +931,7 @@ void paging_update_nestedmode(struct vcpu *v) >> > v->arch.paging.nestedmode = NULL; >> > hvm_asid_flush_vcpu(v); >> > } >> > +#endif >> >> Just a consideration (no objection): Would it be worthwhile to >> introduce CONFIG_NESTED_HVM at the same time (for now hard >> coded to Y, and of course depending on HVM) to avoid having to >> touch all such places a second time later on? > > If we plan to make nested hvm configurable in the future, that would be > a worthwhile thing to do; otherwise it is just another concept that > users need to care about, which creates some mental burden.
Andrew, do you have any opinion / preference either way? Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel