Re: conf/files.xen changes proposal

[Greg Troxel <gdt%ir.bbn.com@localhost>]

rudolf <netbsd%eq.cz@localhost> writes:

> Alistair Crooks wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 07:05:32AM +0200, rudolf wrote:
>>> 1) enable configuration of XEN_DOM0 kernel without "options CPU_UCODE"
>>> -file       arch/xen/xen/xen_ucode.c        dom0ops | cpu_ucode needs-flag
>>> -file       arch/x86/x86/cpu_ucode_amd.c    dom0ops | cpu_ucode needs-flag
>>> +file       arch/xen/xen/xen_ucode.c        cpu_ucode needs-flag
>>> +file       arch/x86/x86/cpu_ucode_amd.c    cpu_ucode needs-flag
>>
>> Haven't you deleted the wrong definition?  If you want to build
>> without "options CPU_UCODE", then I suspect you shouldn't need to
>> specify the same as a definition in the file list?
>
> I admit that I am not sure if this proposed change is right. I
> contacted the responsible person some time ago and got no answer.
>
> If I build the XEN_DOM0 kernel without CPU_UCODE without this proposed
> change, then the build fails. If I build unchanged XEN_DOM0 kernel
> (with CPU_UCODE) with this proposed change, the kernel build finishes
> without a hiccup (CVS tag netbsd-6-1-RELEASE).

And does it actually work and pass regression tests?  The intent of the
original lines seem clear: xen_ucode and cpu_ucode_amd are required in a
dom0, even if the cpu_ucode option is not given.  When was this
committed?  What did the commit message say?