On 10.08.2021 19:47, Kevin Stefanov wrote:
> --- a/xen/common/kexec.c
> +++ b/xen/common/kexec.c
> @@ -35,7 +35,7 @@
> #include <compat/kexec.h>
> #endif
>
> -bool_t kexecing = FALSE;
> +bool kexecing;
While not overly important for either of the two present readers,
I nevertheless wonder whether at this occasion the variable
couldn't also become __read_mostly. Andrew, thoughts?
> --- a/xen/include/xen/kexec.h
> +++ b/xen/include/xen/kexec.h
> @@ -17,7 +17,7 @@ typedef struct xen_kexec_reserve {
> extern xen_kexec_reserve_t kexec_crash_area;
> extern paddr_t kexec_crash_area_limit;
>
> -extern bool_t kexecing;
> +extern bool kexecing;
Later in this file there's also a #define of this identifier, which
imo then wants to also change from expanding to 0 to using "false".
With at least the latter adjustment (which personally I'd be fine
carrying out while committing, just like I would be for the earlier
suggestion, so long as you agree)
Reviewed-by: Jan Beulich <[email protected]>
Jan
