Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v5 01/22] arm/acpi: Estimate memory required for acpi/efi tables

[Shannon Zhao <shannon.zhao@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On 2016年03月04日 18:55, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Mar 2016, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>> > >>> On 04.03.16 at 07:15, <zhaoshenglong@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> > > From: Shannon Zhao <shannon.zhao@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>> > > 
>>> > > Estimate the memory required for loading acpi/efi tables in Dom0. Make
>>> > > the length of each table aligned with 64bit. Alloc the pages to store
>>> > > the new created EFI and ACPI tables and free these pages when
>>> > > destroying domain.
>>> > > 
>>> > > Cc: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>
>>> > > Signed-off-by: Parth Dixit <parth.dixit@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>> > > Signed-off-by: Shannon Zhao <shannon.zhao@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> > 
>> > Since the pattern repeats I finally have to ask: Who is the author
>> > of a patch with such a set of tag? You (From:) or Parth (first S-o-b)?
>> > 
>>> > > --- a/xen/common/efi/boot.c
>>> > > +++ b/xen/common/efi/boot.c
>>> > > @@ -1151,6 +1151,13 @@ efi_start(EFI_HANDLE ImageHandle, 
>>> > > EFI_SYSTEM_TABLE *SystemTable)
>>> > >      for( ; ; ); /* not reached */
>>> > >  }
>>> > >  
>>> > > +#if defined (CONFIG_ACPI) && defined (CONFIG_ARM)
>>> > > +struct meminfo __init *get_acpi_meminfo(void)
>>> > > +{
>>> > > +    return &acpi_mem;
>>> > > +}
>>> > > +#endif
>> > 
>> > No such hackery in common code please, if at all avoidable. If ARM
>> > maintainers are fine with this in their code, it could be put into
>> > ARM's efi-boot.h.
> I am OK with that. If you move it under arch/arm, then drop the ifdef
> CONFIG_ARM.
> 
While I want to include efi-boot.h in efi-dom.c firstly, but there are
many defined-but-not-used errors because there are some of functions in
efi-boot.h which are not used in efi-dom0.c.
So how could we solve such a problem?

Thanks,
--
Shannon

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