[Public] > -----Original Message----- > From: Jan Beulich <[email protected]> > Sent: Monday, August 18, 2025 4:31 PM > To: Penny, Zheng <[email protected]>; Oleksii Kurochko > <[email protected]> > Cc: Huang, Ray <[email protected]>; Andrew Cooper > <[email protected]>; Roger Pau Monné <[email protected]>; > Anthony PERARD <[email protected]>; Orzel, Michal > <[email protected]>; Julien Grall <[email protected]>; Stefano Stabellini > <[email protected]>; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [PATCH] xen/x86: move domctl.o out of PV_SHIM_EXCLUSIVE > > On 15.08.2025 12:27, Penny Zheng wrote: > > In order to fix CI error of a randconfig picking both > > PV_SHIM_EXCLUSIVE=y and HVM=y results in hvm.c being built, but > > domctl.c not being built, which leaves a few functions, like > > domctl_lock_acquire/release() undefined, causing linking to fail. > > To fix that, we intend to move domctl.o out of the PV_SHIM_EXCLUSIVE > > Makefile /hypercall-defs section, with this adjustment, we also need > > to release redundant vnuma_destroy() stub definition from > > PV_SHIM_EXCLUSIVE guardian, to not break compilation Above change will > > leave dead code in the shim binary temporarily and will be fixed with > > the introduction of domctl-op wrapping. > > Well, "temporarily" is now getting interesting. While v1 of "Introduce > CONFIG_DOMCTL" was submitted in time to still be eligible for taking into > 4.21, > that - as indicated elsewhere - is moving us further in an unwanted > direction. Hence > I'm not sure this can even be counted as an in-time submission. Plus it looks > to be > pretty extensive re-work in some areas. > Hence I'm somewhat weary as to 4.21 here. IOW question, mainly to Oleksii, is > whether to > 1) strive to complete that work in time (and hence take the patch here), > 2) take the patch here, accepting the size regression for the shim, or > 3) revert what has caused the randconfig issues, and retry the effort in > 4.22. > > > Fixes: 568f806cba4c ("xen/x86: remove "depends on > > !PV_SHIM_EXCLUSIVE"") > > Reported-by: Jan Beulich <[email protected]> > > Signed-off-by: Penny Zheng <[email protected]> > > My earlier question (when the patch still was part of a series) sadly has > remained > unanswered: You've run this through a full round of testing this time?
Sorry, missed that, yes, it has been tested with both default defconfig and allyesconfig. > > Jan
