Re: [PATCH v5 3/7] xen/riscv: introduce dummy <asm/bug.h>

[Oleksii <oleksii.kurochko@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, 2023-03-22 at 11:27 +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 22.03.2023 11:09, Oleksii wrote:
> > On Tue, 2023-03-21 at 17:21 +0000, Julien Grall wrote:
> > > On 16/03/2023 14:39, Oleksii Kurochko wrote:
> > > > <xen/lib.h> will be used in the patch "xen/riscv: introduce
> > > > decode_cause() stuff" and requires <asm/bug.h>
> > > > 
> > > > Signed-off-by: Oleksii Kurochko <oleksii.kurochko@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > > ---
> > > > Changes in V5:
> > > >   * the patch was introduced in the current patch series (V5)
> > > > ---
> > > >   xen/arch/riscv/include/asm/bug.h | 10 ++++++++++
> > > >   1 file changed, 10 insertions(+)
> > > >   create mode 100644 xen/arch/riscv/include/asm/bug.h
> > > > 
> > > > diff --git a/xen/arch/riscv/include/asm/bug.h
> > > > b/xen/arch/riscv/include/asm/bug.h
> > > > new file mode 100644
> > > > index 0000000000..e8b1e40823
> > > > --- /dev/null
> > > > +++ b/xen/arch/riscv/include/asm/bug.h
> > > > @@ -0,0 +1,10 @@
> > > > +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 */
> > > > +/*
> > > > + * Copyright (C) 2012 Regents of the University of California
> > > > + * Copyright (C) 2021-2023 Vates
> > > 
> > > I am a bit puzzled with those copyright given the header is
> > > empty.
> > > 
> > > But is there any reason this can't be folded in #6 or part of #6
> > > moved 
> > > forward?
> > Initially it was folded in #6 but in this case a build will be
> > failed
> > after introduction of #5 as <asm/bug.h> is needed for <xen/lib.h>
> 
> But what about the other option Julien mentioned, moving ahead the
> later "filling" of asm/bug.h, so it wouldn't be introduced empty and
> then (almost immediately) touched again to actually populate it?
I think I can move the content of <asm/bug.h> from #6 to the current
patch.

~ Oleksii