Hi Jan,
On 18/09/2023 10:29, Jan Beulich wrote:
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,
I can't find a reply to our own mail in my inbox. Do you have a message-id?
? at least as far as this header (and perhaps several others) are
concerned.
Do you have a list where you think they should be kept? Or are you
planning to answer to all you disagree/agree one by one?
Cheers,
--
Julien Grall
