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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20201014175342.152712-1-jandryuk@gmail.com> <20201014175342.152712-2-jandryuk@gmail.com>
 <b74a3f83-cd8a-34a3-b436-95141f01cb20@suse.com>
In-Reply-To: <b74a3f83-cd8a-34a3-b436-95141f01cb20@suse.com>
From:   Jason Andryuk <jandryuk@gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 15 Oct 2020 10:59:40 -0400
Message-ID: <CAKf6xps+mAFdfk8uBw=aMsAFNYmt4ETPkB8dwT3sTv-qPbVENw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] xen: Remove Xen PVH/PVHVM dependency on PCI
To:     Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.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 <xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org>,
        open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Oct 15, 2020 at 4:10 AM Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com> wrote:
>
> 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?

Would you like something more generic like "Xen PVH support" and
"Support for running in Xen PVH mode"?

> >       def_bool n
>
> And is this default still appropriate?

We probably want to flip it on, yes.  PVH is the future, isn't it?

Regards,
Jason