[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [PATCH v4 13/14] xen: ifdef inclusion of <asm/grant_table.h> in <xen/grant_table.h>
On Mon, 2023-11-27 at 15:41 +0100, Jan Beulich wrote: > On 27.11.2023 15:13, Oleksii Kurochko wrote: > > --- a/xen/arch/ppc/include/asm/grant_table.h > > +++ /dev/null > > @@ -1,5 +0,0 @@ > > -/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only */ > > -#ifndef __ASM_PPC_GRANT_TABLE_H__ > > -#define __ASM_PPC_GRANT_TABLE_H__ > > - > > -#endif /* __ASM_PPC_GRANT_TABLE_H__ */ > > Removing this header would be correct only if GRANT_TABLE had a > "depends on > !PPC", I'm afraid. Recall that the earlier randconfig adjustment in > CI was > actually requested to be undone, at which point what an arch's > defconfig > says isn't necessarily what a randconfig should use. We can do depends on !PPC && !RISCV but shouldn't it be enough only to turn CONFIG_GRANT_TABLE off in defconfig and set CONFIG_GRANT_TABLE=n in EXTRA_XEN_CONFIG? Some time ago I also tried to redefine "Config GRANT_TABLE" in arch- specific Kconfig + defconfig + EXTRA_XEN_CONFIG and it works for me. Could it be solution instead of "depends on..." ? One more question I have do we really need this randconfig? On RISC-V side, I launched several time this patch series ( from v1 to v4 + runs during test of patch series ) and I haven't faced case when CONFIG_GRANT_TABLE=n. ( but I turned the config off in defconfig + EXTRA_XEN_CONFIG ). Also when it "Config GRANT_TABLE" was re-defined in arch-specific KConfig I haven't face an issue with CONFIG_GRANT_TABLE too. ~ Oleksii
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |