search for: config_paravirt_mmu

Paravirt ops is currently only capable of either replacing a lot of Linux internal code or none at all. The are users that don't need all of the possibilities pv-ops delivers though. On KVM for example we're perfectly fine not using the PV MMU, thus not touching any MMU code. That way we don't have to improve pv-ops to become fast, we just don't compile the MMU parts in! This

Paravirt ops is currently only capable of either replacing a lot of Linux internal code or none at all. The are users that don't need all of the possibilities pv-ops delivers though. On KVM for example we're perfectly fine not using the PV MMU, thus not touching any MMU code. That way we don't have to improve pv-ops to become fast, we just don't compile the MMU parts in! This

...uild 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

...uild 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