linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/6] x86/xen: Mark xen_hvm_need_lapic() and xen_hvm_need_lapic() as _

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1906241554210.32342@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
Date:   Mon, 24 Jun 2019 15:58:13 +0200 (CEST)
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:     Zhenzhong Duan <zhenzhong.duan@...cle.com>
cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...nel.org, bp@...en8.de,
        hpa@...or.com, boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com, jgross@...e.com,
        sstabellini@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] x86/xen: Mark xen_hvm_need_lapic() and xen_hvm_need_lapic()
 as __init

On Sun, 23 Jun 2019, Zhenzhong Duan wrote:

> .. as they are only called at early bootup stage. In fact, other
> functions in x86_hyper_xen_hvm.init.* are all marked as __init.
> 
> Unexport xen_hvm_need_lapic as it's never used outside.

Can you please provide a cover letter for your patch series and explain
what this whole exercise is about.

I'm seing some __init anotations in various files and then functional xen
changes which seem to be completely unrelated and independent.

Please split such stuff, e.g. the unrelated __init annotations so they can
be picked up and merged and the real functional stuff is then self
contained.

If the __init annotation touches the same code as the functional changes,
then keep them together, but please do not burden reviewers and maintainers
with guess work to decode what is what.

Thanks,

	tglx