On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 12:19:11PM -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
quoted
quoted
If the root complaint is that "customers think that anything set in
.config is a supported feature", then the solutions are to support
all
the features in .config, re-educate the customers that they're wrong,
or
maintain a local patch to do this stuff.
If only re-educating people was free, like preempting questions is.
Local patches are of course always an option, and perhaps in this
case it's the best one. However, I think we already made a case for
better xen configurability for the driver domains, so I'm not 100%
Could you repost those backend patches please? At this point I am not
sure which one we have discarded?
hm, I was thinking in terms of the XenBus ones. We had somewhere in this
converstion something about seperating the backend's from depending on
CONFIG_XEN_DOM0 as they can be run in any domain nowadays.
quoted
convinced my initial patch (making dom0 configurable) isn't worthy
of upstream. Also, I didn't see any comments on my v2[*] of that
patch, which I believe satisfies the menu complexity issue and
brings in more configurability. That said, I'm about to reply to
that patch myself, since there's an issue with it.
Drew
[*] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel.virtualization/14635
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel