[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <80b9f7be-6783-4727-8a44-7922221e4026@suse.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2026 15:22:57 +0100
From: Jürgen Groß <jgross@...e.com>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...nel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
kernel test robot <lkp@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/irqflags: Fix build failure
On 19.01.26 15:10, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 19, 2026 at 02:58:45PM +0100, Jürgen Groß wrote:
>> Ah, yes. The build error happens due to the change of io.h: instead of
>> including paravirt.h only paravirt-base.h is included. Obviously several
>> sources did include io.h and irqflags.h, but no other header including
>> paravirt.h.
>
> So your io set needs the paravirt pile from tip/x86/paravirt. So you can
> include paravirt.h in there and no need for a "fix" patch.
>
Sigh.
paravirt.h is a big hammer.
Switching to paravirt-base.h is part of the goal to reduce include hell
with paravirt.
Why do you insist on keeping irqflags.h inconsistent by not defining
some prototypes if CONFIG_PARAVIRT is set, but not CONFIG_PARAVIRT_XXL.
Commit 22cc5ca5de52 was just missing the part of my patch. It was wrong.
Should have moved the "#include <asm/paravirt.h>" from the
CONFIG_PARAVIRT_XXL to the CONFIG_PARAVIRT umbrella, just like my
patch.
Or do you really think everyone including irqflags.h should include
io.h, too?
Juergen
Download attachment "OpenPGP_0xB0DE9DD628BF132F.asc" of type "application/pgp-keys" (3684 bytes)
Download attachment "OpenPGP_signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (496 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists