Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] xen: Populate xen.lds.h and make use of its macros

[Julien Grall <julien@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

On 30/03/2022 14:24, Michal Orzel wrote:
> On 30.03.2022 14:53, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > On 30.03.2022 14:13, Michal Orzel wrote:
> > > On 30.03.2022 13:57, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > > > On 30.03.2022 13:04, Michal Orzel wrote:
> > > > > On 30.03.2022 12:42, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > > > > > On 30.03.2022 12:32, Julien Grall wrote:
> > > > > > > Renaming to PE_COFF may help to avoid the confusion with CONFIG_EFI.
> > > > > > > That said, it would possibly make more difficult to associate the flag
> > > > > > > with "linking an EFI binary".
> > > > > > Indeed. And EFI_PE_COFF is getting a little unwieldy for my taste.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > I think some documentaion about the define EFI would be help so there
> > > > > > > are no more confusion between CONFIG_EFI/EFI. But I am not sure where to
> > > > > > > put it. Maybe at the top of the header?
> > > > > > That's perhaps the best place, yes.
> > > > > In this case how about the following comment at the top of xen.lds.h:
> > > > >
> > > > > "To avoid any confusion about EFI macro used in this header vs EFI support,
> > > > > the former is used when linking a native EFI (i.e. PE/COFF) binary, whereas
> > > > > the latter means support for generating EFI binary.
> > > > No, that's the case on Arm only. As Julien suggested, it is perhaps best
> > > > to explain the difference between EFI and CONFIG_EFI, without going into
> > > > arch specifics.
> > > Could you please tell me what you are reffering to as there is no such 
> > > identifier
> > > in Xen (as opposed to Linux) like CONFIG_EFI ?
> > Let's call it a "virtual" CONFIG_EFI then; I think we really should have
> > such an option. But yes, if you don't like referring to such a virtual
> > option, then describing what is meant verbally is certainly going to be
> > fine.
> FWICS, there was an attempt done by Wei in his NUMA series to define CONFIG_EFI.
> However as this is not yet merged and agreed, I would like not to refer to 
> identifiers
> not existing in the code, even though most people are familiar with this option 
> from Linux.
>
> So by taking an example from Linux I would verbally explain it like that:
> "To avoid any confusion, please note that EFI macro does not correspond to EFI
> runtime support and is used when linking a native EFI (i.e. PE/COFF) binary, 
> hence its
"EFI runtime support" can be mistakenly associated to EFI runtime 
services (which BTW not supported on Arm). So I would suggest to 
s/runtime/boot/.
Cheers,

--
Julien Grall