On 24.02.2026 09:53, Roger Pau Monné wrote: > 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.
Well, I'll (reluctantly) change then. Jan
