On 18.09.2023 11:32, Julien Grall wrote: > 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?
Oh, sorry, I said so in reply to 01/29. > ? 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? I think this can only be one-by-one. Jan
