On 01.12.2025 15:19, Andrew Cooper wrote: > On 01/12/2025 8:46 am, Jan Beulich wrote: >> On 28.11.2025 19:47, Andrew Cooper wrote: >>> --- a/xen/lib/Makefile >>> +++ b/xen/lib/Makefile >>> @@ -17,6 +17,7 @@ lib-y += memset.o >>> lib-y += muldiv64.o >>> lib-y += parse-size.o >>> lib-y += rbtree.o >>> +lib-$(CONFIG_X86) += sha1.o >>> lib-$(CONFIG_X86) += sha2-256.o >>> lib-y += sort.o >>> lib-y += strcasecmp.o >> Why exactly are we confining the two SHA<n> to x86? They're both plain C >> implementations, so ought to be fine to build everywhere. Being in $(lib-y) >> they also wouldn't make it into the final binary until a reference would >> appear. > > For the SHA2 patch, an objection was made to compiling it on the other > architectures. Personally I think they ought to be plain lib-y.
Everyone (not knowing where the objection came from) - can we please re- consider this, ideally ... > I could always have patch 1 fix up to lib-y and have patch 2 match... ... allowing this to be done? Jan
