[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20211119102123.52pkdqgdqdvqefib@box.shutemov.name>
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2021 13:21:23 +0300
From: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>
To: Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan
<sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com>,
Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, x86@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
Deep Shah <sdeep@...are.com>,
"VMware, Inc." <pv-drivers@...are.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/paravirt: Fix build PARAVIRT_XXL=y without XEN_PV
On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 07:23:51AM +0100, Juergen Gross wrote:
> On 17.11.21 19:14, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> > TDX is going to use CONFIG_PARAVIRT_XXL, but kernel fails to compile if
> > XEN_PV is not enabled:
> >
> > ld.lld: error: undefined symbol: xen_iret
> >
> > It happens because INTERRUPT_RETURN defined to use xen_iret if
> > CONFIG_PARAVIRT_XXL enabled regardless of CONFIG_XEN_PV.
> >
> > The issue is not visible in the current kernel because CONFIG_XEN_PV is
> > the only user of CONFIG_PARAVIRT_XXL and there's no way to enable them
> > separately.
> >
> > Rework code to define INTERRUPT_RETURN based on CONFIG_XEN_PV, not
> > CONFIG_PARAVIRT_XXL.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Kirill A. Shutemov <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>
> > Cc: Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>
> > Cc: Deep Shah <sdeep@...are.com>
> > Cc: "VMware, Inc." <pv-drivers@...are.com>
>
> I agree with the patch, so:
>
> Reviewed-by: Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>
>
> Nevertheless I believe that TDX should not switch to use PARAVIRT_XXL.
Do I need to resend without TDX mention?
--
Kirill A. Shutemov
Powered by blists - more mailing lists