On Tue, Feb 24, 2026 at 07:54:29AM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote: > On 23.02.2026 20:00, Andrew Cooper wrote: > > 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. > > Indeed. The sole reason why I'd prefer things as presented is that putting > stuff in ARCH_LIBS should imo be the special case (i.e. requiring a special > reason), while putting things in ALL_LIBS should be the default.
I agree with Andrew that it feels weird that arch/x86/lib/lib.a is placed in ARCH_LIBS-y and arch/x86/lib/cpu-policy/lib.a is placed in ALL_LIBS-y. If we want to do it that way it needs a comment explaining why they are placed in different list, otherwise it seems like a typo on first sight, and it's likely to confuse people in the future. Thanks, Roger.
