On 10.07.2024 12:52, Sergiy Kibrik wrote: > 10.07.24 13:28, Jan Beulich: >> On 10.07.2024 12:21, Sergiy Kibrik wrote: >>> 09.07.24 10:11, Jan Beulich: >>>> On 09.07.2024 07:45, Sergiy Kibrik wrote: >>>>> From: Xenia Ragiadakou <[email protected]> >>>>> >>>>> Introduce two new Kconfig options, SVM and VMX, to allow code >>>>> specific to each virtualization technology to be separated and, when not >>>>> required, stripped. >>>>> CONFIG_SVM will be used to enable virtual machine extensions on platforms >>>>> that >>>>> implement the AMD Virtualization Technology (AMD-V). >>>>> CONFIG_VMX will be used to enable virtual machine extensions on platforms >>>>> that >>>>> implement the Intel Virtualization Technology (Intel VT-x). >>>>> >>>>> Both features depend on HVM support. >>>>> >>>>> Since, at this point, disabling any of them would cause Xen to not >>>>> compile, >>>>> the options are enabled by default if HVM and are not selectable by the >>>>> user. >>>>> >>>>> No functional change intended. >>>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Xenia Ragiadakou <[email protected]> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Sergiy Kibrik <[email protected]> >>>>> --- >>>>> changes in v3: >>>>> - tag added >>>> >>>> And then removed again in v4? My prior ack stands, but - as before - >>>> conditional >>>> upon us being certain that we want to go with the ambiguous ... >>>> >>>>> changes in v2: >>>>> - simplify kconfig expression to def_bool HVM >>>>> - keep file list in Makefile in alphabetical order >>>>> changes in v1: >>>>> - change kconfig option name AMD_SVM/INTEL_VMX -> SVM/VMX >>>> >>>> ... result of this change (firmly ambiguous for SVM, latently for VMX). >>> >>> I've put my thoughts about naming in the series' cover letter, however >>> I'm not strongly preferring current naming and if it finds no advocates >>> I'll rename it in next series. >> >> Just to clarify: Did anyone ask for the name change done in v1? If so, >> maybe that request cam with some justification? > > yes, that request came from you: > > https://lore.kernel.org/xen-devel/[email protected]/
Hmm, how unfortunate. I definitely want to take back that comment, for the reason given (in context) above. I'm sorry for the back and forth then, also to you, Xenia. Jan
