linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 15/21] x86/xen: Drop xen_irq

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: <20251007102106.GE3245006@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2025 12:21:06 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Jürgen Groß <jgross@...e.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
	Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
	Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...nel.org>,
	xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 15/21] x86/xen: Drop xen_irq_ops

On Tue, Oct 07, 2025 at 09:47:48AM +0200, Jürgen Groß wrote:
> On 06.10.25 20:55, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 06, 2025 at 09:46:00AM +0200, Juergen Gross wrote:
> > > Instead of having a pre-filled array xen_irq_ops for Xen PV paravirt
> > > functions, drop the array and assign each element individually.
> > 
> > Same comment for the next few patches; this changelog is a little light
> > on *why*. I mean, I don't mind the change, but supposedly we should
> > justify things at least a little, right? :-)
> 
> Would you be fine with the following addition:
> 
>   This is in preparation of reducing the paravirt include hell by
>   splitting paravirt.h into multiple more fine grained header files,
>   which will in turn require to split up the pv_ops vector as well.
>   Dropping the pre-filled array makes life easier for objtool to
>   detect missing initializers in multiple pv_ops_ arrays.

Yes, that'll do. The latter being the main reason in this case, right?