From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S965297AbdEOOJb (ORCPT ); Mon, 15 May 2017 10:09:31 -0400 Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:42268 "EHLO mx1.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932677AbdEOOJa (ORCPT ); Mon, 15 May 2017 10:09:30 -0400 To: Rusty Russell , Linux Kernel Mailing List , virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, xen-devel , lguest@lists.ozlabs.org From: Juergen Gross Subject: Support of lguest? Message-ID: <7696c3d8-0ede-2704-34bb-d3d7dac6883d@suse.com> Date: Mon, 15 May 2017 16:09:25 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Lguest and Xen pv-guests are the only users of pv_mmu_ops (with the one exception of the .exit_mmap member, which is being used by Xen HVM-guests, too). As it is possible now to build a kernel without Xen pv-guest support while keeping PVH and PVHVM support, I thought about putting most pv_mmu_ops functions in #ifdef CONFIG_XEN_HAS_PVMMU sections. If there wouldn't be lguest... So my question: is anybody still using lguest or would like to keep it? If yes, I'd add CONFIG_PARAVIRT_MMU selected by CONFIG_XEN_PV and CONFIG_LGUEST_GUEST. If no, I'd remove lguest support and just use CONFIG_XEN_HAS_PVMMU, in case nobody would like me to use CONFIG_PARAVIRT_MMU even if lguest isn't there any more. Juergen