On 18.09.2023 10:51, Oleksii wrote: > On Thu, 2023-09-14 at 17:08 +0200, Jan Beulich wrote: >> On 14.09.2023 16:56, Oleksii Kurochko wrote: >>> Based on two patch series [1] and [2], the idea of which is to >>> provide minimal >>> amount of things for a complete Xen build, a large amount of >>> headers are the same >>> or almost the same, so it makes sense to move them to asm-generic. >>> >>> Also, providing such stub headers should help future architectures >>> to add >>> a full Xen build. >>> >>> [1] >>> https://lore.kernel.org/xen-devel/[email protected]/ >>> [2] >>> https://lore.kernel.org/xen-devel/[email protected]/ >>> >>> Oleksii Kurochko (29): >>> xen/asm-generic: introduce stub header spinlock.h >> >> At the example of this, personally I think this goes too far. Headers >> in >> asm-generic should be for the case where an arch elects to not >> implement >> certain functionality. Clearly spinlocks are required uniformly. > It makes sense. Then I will back to the option [2] where I introduced > all this headers as part of RISC-V architecture.
You did see though that in a reply to my own mail I said I take back the comment, at least as far as this header (and perhaps several others) are concerned. Jan
