>>> On 05.10.18 at 12:32, <[email protected]> wrote: > On 05/10/18 11:20, Jan Beulich wrote: >> It's dead code in that case. >> >> We could go further, as we don't really need the 2- and 3-level walk >> code in PV mode, but to drop their compilation requires quite a bit of >> disentangling of shadow mode code. >> >> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <[email protected]> >> >> --- a/xen/arch/x86/mm/Makefile >> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/mm/Makefile >> @@ -2,9 +2,8 @@ subdir-y += shadow >> subdir-$(CONFIG_HVM) += hap >> >> obj-$(CONFIG_HVM) += altp2m.o >> -obj-y += guest_walk_2.o >> -obj-y += guest_walk_3.o >> -obj-y += guest_walk_4.o >> +obj-$(CONFIG_HVM) += guest_walk_2.o guest_walk_3.o guest_walk_4.o >> +obj-$(CONFIG_SHADOW_PAGING) += guest_walk_2.o guest_walk_3.o guest_walk_4.o >> obj-$(CONFIG_MEM_ACCESS) += mem_access.o >> obj-y += mem_paging.o >> obj-y += mem_sharing.o > > I'm fine with the change in principle. How about > > obj-gw := guest_walk_2.o guest_walk_3.o guest_walk_4.o > > obj-$(CONFIG_HVM) += obj-gw > obj-$(CONFIG_SHADOW_PAGING) += obj-gw > > to avoid duplicating the guest_walk* list?
I had it that way, and I dropped it specifically in order to later just touch the shadow related line, when only the 4-level walk is going to remain needed on !HVM configs. > Either way, Acked-by: Andrew Cooper <[email protected]> Thanks, Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
