Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 09/10] x86: check kexec relocation code fits in a page

[Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, 2013-06-25 at 12:38 +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 25.06.13 at 11:31, Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On 25/06/13 09:33, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>>>> On 24.06.13 at 19:42, David Vrabel <david.vrabel@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/xen.lds.S
> >>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/xen.lds.S
> >>> @@ -186,3 +186,7 @@ SECTIONS
> >>>    .stab.indexstr 0 : { *(.stab.indexstr) }
> >>>    .comment 0 : { *(.comment) }
> >>>  }
> >>> +
> >>> +#ifdef CONFIG_KEXEC
> >>> +ASSERT(__kexec_reloc_size <= PAGE_SIZE, "kexec control code is too 
> >>> large")
> >>> +#endif
> >> I don't recall having seen a mechanism to disable CONFIG_KEXEC, so
> >> why the conditional?
> > 
> > CONFIG_KEXEC exists in include/asm-x86/config.h, but it turns out not to
> > compile if you disable it.
> 
> This is more of an announcement than a knob for disabling (such
> that e.g. generic code can exclude respective pieces from getting
> built).

It would have been better to call these things HAVE_FOO rather than
CONFIG_FOO to avoid the implication of configurability, but that horse
is long gone...

> 
> > I for one would not mind in the slightest if CONFIG_KEXEC disappeared.
> 
> We should keep it at least as long as ARM doesn't support it, and
> perhaps even after to be prepared for new ports that (initially)
> don't have the necessary support bits.
> 
> Jan
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Xen-devel mailing list
> Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel



_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel