On 13/02/2026 2:26 pm, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 13, 2026 at 02:37:29PM +0100, Alejandro Vallejo wrote:
>> diff --git a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/hvm.c b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/hvm.c
>> index 4d37a93c57..da56944e74 100644
>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/hvm.c
>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/hvm.c
>> @@ -173,9 +175,16 @@ static int __init cf_check hvm_enable(void)
>> svm_fill_funcs();
>>
>> if ( fns == NULL )
>> + {
>> + if ( !IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PV) )
>> + panic("HVM support not detected and PV compiled-out\n");
As with Rogers feedback on the next patch, this wording isn't ideal.
How about:
"HVM support required but not available\n".
This is reachable for people who use cpuid=no-vmx,no-svm but they get to
keep all the pieces and the documentation already has a general warning
about this kind of stuff.
>> +
>> return 0;
>> + }
>>
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_PV
> CONFIG_HVM I think?
No - CONFIG_PV is correct here, because we're inside an HVM-only file.
It's the only case where this variable exists for real.
~Andrew
