Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] xen: Remove Xen PVH/PVHVM dependency on PCI
To:     Jason Andryuk <jandryuk@gmail.com>
Cc:     Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com>,
        Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com>,
        Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@kernel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
        x86@kernel.org, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
        xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <20201014175342.152712-1-jandryuk@gmail.com>
 <20201014175342.152712-2-jandryuk@gmail.com>
From:   Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
Message-ID: <b74a3f83-cd8a-34a3-b436-95141f01cb20@suse.com>
Date:   Thu, 15 Oct 2020 10:10:11 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/68.12.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20201014175342.152712-2-jandryuk@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 14.10.2020 19:53, Jason Andryuk wrote:
> @@ -76,7 +80,9 @@ config XEN_DEBUG_FS
>  	  Enabling this option may incur a significant performance overhead.
>  
>  config XEN_PVH
> -	bool "Support for running as a Xen PVH guest"
> +	bool "Xen PVH guest support"

Tangential question: Is "guest" here still appropriate, i.e.
isn't this option also controlling whether the kernel can be
used in a PVH Dom0?

>  	def_bool n

And is this default still appropriate?

Jan