Re: [PATCH v1 00/29] Introduce stub headers necessary for full Xen build

[Julien Grall <julien@xxxxxxx>]

Hi Jan,

On 18/09/2023 10:29, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 18.09.2023 10:51, Oleksii wrote:
> > On Thu, 2023-09-14 at 17:08 +0200, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > > On 14.09.2023 16:56, Oleksii Kurochko wrote:
> > > > Based on two patch series [1] and [2], the idea of which is to
> > > > provide minimal
> > > > amount of things for a complete Xen build, a large amount of
> > > > headers are the same
> > > > or almost the same, so it makes sense to move them to asm-generic.
> > > >
> > > > Also, providing such stub headers should help future architectures
> > > > to add
> > > > a full Xen build.
> > > >
> > > > [1]
> > > > https://lore.kernel.org/xen-devel/cover.1694543103.git.sanastasio@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/
> > > > [2]
> > > > https://lore.kernel.org/xen-devel/cover.1692181079.git.oleksii.kurochko@xxxxxxxxx/
> > > >
> > > > Oleksii Kurochko (29):
> > > >    xen/asm-generic: introduce stub header spinlock.h
> > > At the example of this, personally I think this goes too far. Headers
> > > in
> > > asm-generic should be for the case where an arch elects to not
> > > implement
> > > certain functionality. Clearly spinlocks are required uniformly.
> > It makes sense. Then I will back to the option [2] where I introduced
> > all this headers as part of RISC-V architecture.
> You did see though that in a reply to my own mail I said I take back the
> comment,
I can't find a reply to our own mail in my inbox. Do you have a message-id?

? at least as far as this header (and perhaps several others) are
> concerned.
Do you have a list where you think they should be kept? Or are you 
planning to answer to all you disagree/agree one by one?
Cheers,

--
Julien Grall