[Public] > -----Original Message----- > From: Jan Beulich <[email protected]> > Sent: Monday, August 4, 2025 3:41 PM > To: Penny, Zheng <[email protected]> > Cc: Huang, Ray <[email protected]>; Andrew Cooper > <[email protected]>; Anthony PERARD <[email protected]>; > Orzel, Michal <[email protected]>; Julien Grall <[email protected]>; Roger Pau > Monné <[email protected]>; Stefano Stabellini <[email protected]>; > xen- > [email protected] > Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 05/25] xen: introduce CONFIG_DOMCTL > > On 03.08.2025 11:47, Penny Zheng wrote: > > --- a/xen/common/Kconfig > > +++ b/xen/common/Kconfig > > @@ -627,6 +627,10 @@ config SYSCTL > > This option shall only be disabled on some dom0less systems, or > > PV shim on x86, to reduce Xen footprint. > > > > +config DOMCTL > > + bool "Enable domctl hypercall" > > + def_bool y > > + > > Just to re-iterate - we don't think we want things to be this fine-grained. > (As an aside, nit: "bool" and "def_bool" are partly redundant with one > another.) >
Are we suggesting to use one Kconfig, maybe like CONFIG_XENCTL(not a good choice, just popping in my head...), to wrap all scenarios, including sysctl-op, domctl-op, jiqian's platform-op, etc ? In which case, maybe we still submit commits(or features) serie by serie, more easy to review, but only when all is completed, we make this Kconfig as an selectable option ? > Jan
