[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <b09f3263-61a4-4b3e-948e-068e5806ffa1@suse.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2021 13:55:26 +0100
From: Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>
To: Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai+lkml@...il.com>,
"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>
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 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
LKML <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 20.11.21 02:23, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 19, 2021 at 6:20 PM Kirill A. Shutemov <kirill@...temov.name> wrote:
>
>>> It is part of what CONFIG_PARAVIRT_XXL was designed for to enable
>>> pv-aware INTERRUPT_RETURN.
>>
>> That's very vague statement.
>>
>> Could you elaborate on what is wrong with proposed fix?
>>
>
> Although CONFIG_PARAVIRT_XXL is enabled only when XEN, but they are
> separated configs. There is no wrong with the patch, but it is not
> justified to narrow the scope of INTERRUPT_RETURN.
xen_iret is defined only with CONFIG_XEN_PV, so using that in
INTERRUPT_RETURN only in case CONFIG_XEN_PV is defined is absolutely
the right thing to do.
In case another user of INTERRUPT_RETURN would come up, it would
need to be changed again anyway.
Juergen
Download attachment "OpenPGP_0xB0DE9DD628BF132F.asc" of type "application/pgp-keys" (3092 bytes)
Download attachment "OpenPGP_signature" of type "application/pgp-signature" (496 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists