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

[Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

On 18.09.2023 11:32, Julien Grall wrote:
> 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?

Oh, sorry, I said so in reply to 01/29.

> ? 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?

I think this can only be one-by-one.

Jan