Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753711AbYAVUGe (ORCPT ); Tue, 22 Jan 2008 15:06:34 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750767AbYAVUG1 (ORCPT ); Tue, 22 Jan 2008 15:06:27 -0500 Received: from smtp02.citrix.com ([66.165.176.63]:14264 "EHLO SMTP02.CITRIX.COM" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750765AbYAVUG0 (ORCPT ); Tue, 22 Jan 2008 15:06:26 -0500 X-SBRS: None X-MesageID: 38803512 X-Ironport-Server: ftlpip02.citrite.net X-Remote-IP: 216.142.71.134 X-Policy: $Relay X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.25,235,1199682000"; d="scan'208";a="38803512" Message-ID: <47964C7A.6000609@citrix.com> Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 12:05:14 -0800 From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (X11/20071115) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ingo Molnar CC: Jeremy Fitzhardinge , Eduardo Pereira Habkost , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, chrisw@sous-sol.org, anthony@codemonkey.ws, hpa@zytor.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, tglx@linutronix.de, roland@redhat.com, ak@suse.de Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] paravirt_ops-64 compile fixes References: <1200952133-31581-1-git-send-email-ehabkost@redhat.com> <20080122120207.GA30271@elte.hu> <20080122123450.GU7338@blackpad> <47962E1D.2090308@goop.org> <20080122194710.GC3218@elte.hu> In-Reply-To: <20080122194710.GC3218@elte.hu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1627 Lines: 38 Ingo Molnar wrote: > * Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote: > > >>> Maybe should this force-paravirt mode be a kernel debugging option? >>> >> No, just a plain CONFIG_PARAVIRT to turn it on and off independently >> of everything else. >> > > it should be a debugging option in the way that it's dependent on > KERNEL_DEBUG and KERNEL_EXPERIMENTAL. > EXPERIMENTAL certainly, but not DEBUG. Sure, CONFIG_PARAVIRT is somewhat useless if you don't also configure Xen/lguest/etc, but running a paravirt system on bare hardware will probably be the most common way a paravirt kernel gets run (a distro will always enable it and compile in whatever hypervisor support they want, but most people will end up just running it on bare hardware). Therefore, we should try to be as sure as possible that PARAVIRT works well (ie, indistinguishable from non-PARAVIRT) on bare hardware. > i dont think you shold worry about this - i think 64-bit guest support > for specific hypervisors could be added even after the merge window, if > it's reasonably isolated (which i'd expect it to be). It clearly cannot > break anything else so it's the same category as new driver or new > hardware support - more relaxed integration rules. Then we can remove > the KERNEL_DEBUG and KERNEL_EXPERIMENTAL dependency as well. Good, I'm glad you feel that way. J -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/