On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 06:55:17AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote: > >>> On 13.09.18 at 18:38, <[email protected]> wrote: > > Signed-off-by: Wei Liu <[email protected]> > > --- > > v4: remove a blank line > > v3: longer text > > v2: use tab to indent > > > > Haven't added a dependency on PV_SHIM_EXCLUSIVE because agreement is > > not yet reached. > > > > CC more people for opinions. > > > > Cc: Andrew Cooper <[email protected]> > > Cc: George Dunlap <[email protected]> > > Cc: Ian Jackson <[email protected]> > > Cc: Jan Beulich <[email protected]> > > Cc: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <[email protected]> > > Cc: Stefano Stabellini <[email protected]> > > Cc: Tim Deegan <[email protected]> > > Cc: Juergen Gross <[email protected]> > > > > I don't have an opinion here, that's why I didn't reply to previous > > threads. > > > > Maybe > > > > def_bool y if !PV_SHIM_EXCLUSIVE > > > > is a good compromise? > > Well, that's the minimum I can live with, but I won't ack a patch without > the earlier suggested "depends on". However, not need for "if ..." here, > just using "def_bool !PV_SHIM_EXCLUSIVE" should be quite fine as long > as there's an always visible prompt. > > Note also that ordering within the various Kconfig* files may matter > with this approach, at least when processing things sequentially (like > is happening for the "oldconfig" target, for example): The wrong > default would probably be suggested if PV_SHIM_EXCLUSIVE has not > been given a value yet by the time HVM is getting prompted for.
I tried to figure out if there is a well defined model for Kconfig option processing, but found none. I don't know what else I can do to unblock this. For now I will just make a small adjustment. Wei. > > Jan > > _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
