On 02/02/2026 4:26 pm, Jan Beulich wrote: > On 02.02.2026 16:47, Andrew Cooper wrote: >> On 07/01/2026 2:17 pm, Jan Beulich wrote: >>> diff --git a/xen/arch/x86/arch.mk b/xen/arch/x86/arch.mk >>> index 0203138a819a..be6c76d2934b 100644 >>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/arch.mk >>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/arch.mk >>> @@ -4,6 +4,7 @@ >>> export XEN_IMG_OFFSET := 0x200000 >>> >>> ARCH_LIBS-y += arch/x86/lib/lib.a >>> +ALL_LIBS-y += arch/x86/lib/cpu-policy/lib.a >> This wants to extend ARCH_LIBS-y surely? Is this a rebasing oversight? > No, this was deliberate. The functions here are different from those in > arch/x86/lib/lib.a. We don't need to fear collision with "common code" > ones. Hence I preferred to use the more "normal" placement into what's > passed to the linker.
I agree that we don't have the explicit ordering requirement that we have with arch/x86/lib/lib.a. But, it still reads as bogus to be putting arch/x86/lib/cpu-policy/lib.a in the non-ARCH list. What difference is there having this a little earlier in the linker arguments? Nothing AFAICT. ~Andrew
