Re: [PATCH 4/4] xen/virtual-region: Drop setup_virtual_regions()

[Oleksii <oleksii.kurochko@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, 2024-03-18 at 13:49 +0000, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 18/03/2024 1:29 pm, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > On 18.03.2024 12:04, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> > > --- a/xen/common/virtual_region.c
> > > +++ b/xen/common/virtual_region.c
> > > @@ -39,6 +39,11 @@ static struct virtual_region core = {
> > >          { __start_bug_frames_2, __stop_bug_frames_2 },
> > >          { __start_bug_frames_3, __stop_bug_frames_3 },
> > >      },
> > > +
> > > +#ifdef CONFIG_X86
> > > +    .ex = __start___ex_table,
> > > +    .ex_end = __stop___ex_table,
> > > +#endif
> > >  };
> > >  
> > >  /* Becomes irrelevant when __init sections are cleared. */
> > > @@ -57,6 +62,11 @@ static struct virtual_region core_init
> > > __initdata = {
> > >          { __start_bug_frames_2, __stop_bug_frames_2 },
> > >          { __start_bug_frames_3, __stop_bug_frames_3 },
> > >      },
> > > +
> > > +#ifdef CONFIG_X86
> > > +    .ex = __start___ex_table,
> > > +    .ex_end = __stop___ex_table,
> > > +#endif
> > >  };
> > My main reservation here is this x86-specific code in a common
> > file.
> > Are we certain both RISC-V and PPC will get away without needing to
> > touch this? If so, I might consider ack-ing. But really I'd prefer
> > if
> > this could be minimally abstracted, via e.g. CONFIG_HAS_EXTABLE
> > (selected by x86 only for now).
> 
> This isn't the first bit of CONFIG_X86 in this file.  However, I'd
> not
> spotted that we have CONFIG_HAS_EX_TABLE already.  I can swap.
> 
> As to extable on other architectures, that's not something I can
> answer,
> although it's not something I can see in Oleksii's or Shawn's series
> so far.
That's correct for RISC-V. Currently, I'm not utilizing
__start___ex_table/__stop___ex_table, and setup_virtual_regions() is
called with setup_virtual_regions(NULL, NULL).

~ Oleksii