On 04.08.2025 10:29, Penny, Zheng wrote: > [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 ?
Yes, that's the thought that was circulated, and that I had hoped Stefano would have conveyed. > 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 ? Likely the best route, but that may then mean stepping back a little on SYSCTL, before trying to deal with SYSCTL and maybe PLATFORM_OP (albeit I raised further reservations there). Jan
