From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.5 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_INVALID, DKIM_SIGNED,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SIGNED_OFF_BY, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A3D3C43461 for ; Tue, 15 Sep 2020 11:03:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.xenproject.org (lists.xenproject.org [192.237.175.120]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1C4A821D1B for ; Tue, 15 Sep 2020 11:03:17 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key) header.d=citrix.com header.i=@citrix.com header.b="W7mftJjM" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 1C4A821D1B Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=reject dis=none) header.from=citrix.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=xen-devel-bounces@lists.xenproject.org Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.xenproject.org) by lists.xenproject.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1kI8jY-0004L6-RY; Tue, 15 Sep 2020 11:02:48 +0000 Received: from all-amaz-eas1.inumbo.com ([34.197.232.57] helo=us1-amaz-eas2.inumbo.com) by lists.xenproject.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1kI8jX-0004Ka-2j for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Tue, 15 Sep 2020 11:02:47 +0000 X-Inumbo-ID: d45cb013-3289-40db-b683-6823b22b0853 Received: from esa3.hc3370-68.iphmx.com (unknown [216.71.145.155]) by us1-amaz-eas2.inumbo.com (Halon) with ESMTPS id d45cb013-3289-40db-b683-6823b22b0853; Tue, 15 Sep 2020 11:02:45 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=citrix.com; s=securemail; t=1600167765; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references: mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=Jd+bZriEcwaMOxixhmLWa9/tT5TIxBSEVT1ah/+Ld2w=; b=W7mftJjMrlvfQuxOcRE3RAOkUciJnhVBGof5We2vtL7FKN5eFj+DQj+w DJItR82pa1ZsKt2X3AhCv4/0qrG5nAr7zFwFIIXQ6VRMG7q4P7vbmenzY EfCCPBoB0ApnTtKuV5vnvUrvA3DlvEVKZJLqmiuWAyegBUHC3SgfjmQ25 I=; Authentication-Results: esa3.hc3370-68.iphmx.com; dkim=none (message not signed) header.i=none IronPort-SDR: se2nB1KNEgkA2saXlVTVciS5aFWI9gki3+Qfxz2OLBzQa2cRfbfbIsNIzgx0uW+j0wushMnicD ofvvOgYdy9rC1YTlS7F0t/LLJf5hFdPlvysjm20hgX/V/JlvTNOXB4yqI3fF1uWJc4/2z8yvrD iCMItLAZUeQAEy3qLATiw9Yq1QueR2PxQ6yXthFwBQySUc4WqHzCMsRbzz/B8FVJDZEWFxQQ/+ qEoJZSZzKFU+D7doHNWhv8RKTwj8nRwAhAH4pRbAzsHf6kAn/Bap4numJ28K+JRtOh41PxnKnE ugg= X-SBRS: 2.7 X-MesageID: 26688624 X-Ironport-Server: esa3.hc3370-68.iphmx.com X-Remote-IP: 162.221.158.21 X-Policy: $RELAYED X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.76,429,1592884800"; d="scan'208";a="26688624" Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2020 13:02:33 +0200 From: Roger Pau =?utf-8?B?TW9ubsOp?= To: Jan Beulich CC: "xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org" , "Andrew Cooper" , Wei Liu , George Dunlap Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] x86/shim: don't permit HVM and PV_SHIM_EXCLUSIVE at the same time Message-ID: <20200915110233.GK753@Air-de-Roger> References: <5d86a23c-5dea-8697-9ba1-900d35b99695@suse.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-ClientProxiedBy: AMSPEX02CAS02.citrite.net (10.69.22.113) To FTLPEX02CL06.citrite.net (10.13.108.179) X-BeenThere: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Xen developer discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xenproject.org Sender: "Xen-devel" On Mon, Sep 14, 2020 at 02:39:33PM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote: > This combination doesn't really make sense (and there likely are more). > The alternative here would be some presumably intrusive #ifdef-ary to > get this combination to actually build again. > > Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich I'm not sure I see a way to cater for Andrew requests while allowing PV_SHIM_EXCLUSIVE to gate options in order to be able to remove code. Maybe PV_SHIM_EXCLUSIVE should be moved to the top level Kconfig screen on x86 and behave like a list, so that you select a 'Normal' hypervisor build or a 'PV shim exclusive' build, and that could completely change the contents of the menus? If that doesn't seem suitable I think the proposed patch is a good option unless someone has a better approach. Thanks, Roger.