[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: conf/files.xen changes proposal
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?
Main Index |
Thread Index |