On 26.01.2024 10:44, Oleksii wrote: > On Tue, 2024-01-23 at 14:37 +0100, Jan Beulich wrote: >> On 23.01.2024 13:34, Oleksii wrote: >>> On Tue, 2024-01-23 at 12:14 +0100, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>> On 22.12.2023 16:13, Oleksii Kurochko wrote: >>>>> --- a/xen/common/Kconfig >>>>> +++ b/xen/common/Kconfig >>>>> @@ -47,6 +47,9 @@ config ARCH_MAP_DOMAIN_PAGE >>>>> config GENERIC_BUG_FRAME >>>>> bool >>>>> >>>>> +config GENERIC_FIND_NEXT_BIT >>>>> + bool >>>> >>>> There's no need for this, as ... >>>> >>>>> --- a/xen/lib/Makefile >>>>> +++ b/xen/lib/Makefile >>>>> @@ -3,6 +3,7 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_X86) += x86/ >>>>> lib-y += bsearch.o >>>>> lib-y += ctors.o >>>>> lib-y += ctype.o >>>>> +lib-$(CONFIG_GENERIC_FIND_NEXT_BIT) += find-next-bit.o >>>> >>>> ... you're moving this to lib/. Or have you encountered any issue >>>> with building this uniformly, and you forgot to mention this in >>>> the description? >>> I didn't check. My intention was to provide opportunity to check if >>> an >>> architecture want to use generic version or not. Otherwise, I >>> expected >>> that we will have multiple definiotion of the funcion. >>> >>> But considering that they are all defined under #ifdef...#endif we >>> can >>> remove the declaration of the config GENERIC_FIND_NEXT_BIT. >> >> What #ifdef / #endif would matter here? Whats in lib/ is intended to >> be >> generic anyway. And what is in the resulting lib.a won't be used by >> an >> arch if it has an arch-specific implementation. Problems could arise >> if >> an arch had an inline function colliding with the out-of-line one. >> But >> that's about the old case where I could see a need to make the >> building >> of one of the objects conditional. And you'll note that withing this >> Makefile there are pretty few conditionals. > We will have such issue with PPC: > ... > static inline unsigned long find_next_bit(const unsigned long *addr, > unsigned long size, > unsigned long offset) > ... > > It looks like an introduction of new config for find_next_bit is > needed. > > Does a better option exist? Would making find_next_bit non inline non > inline for PPC better?
Isn't that generic code anyway? If so, that also wants replacing by the generic library function(s). Shawn - I have to admit I have a hard time seeing why this was introduced as inline functions in the first place. Jan
