Re: vio9p vs. GENERIC.local vs. XEN3_DOM[0U]

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

Mouse <mouse%Rodents-Montreal.ORG@localhost> writes:

> My answer is, error-checking.  If I, say, typo "pci" as "cpi" in
>
> 	mydev* at cpi?
>
> I'd want an error rather than having the line silently ignored.  (That
> particular typo is not all that plausible.  It's just an example.)
>
> Now, if virtio were specifically declared as "this name is valid but
> may or may not be present"?  I'm on the fence.
>
> If virtio were declared normally in the kernels that provide it and
> declared as valid but specifically absent in XEN3_DOM* kernels?  Then I
> think that's what I'd want (to my limited understanding, this is close
> to what "no virtio" does at present).

A fair point, but are you suggesting that every bus that could ever
exist be declared and all other kernels have "no", as a general
approach?