[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [PATCH v4 1/6] xen: introduce SIMPLE_DECL_SECTION
On 27.09.2024 12:42, oleksii.kurochko@xxxxxxxxx wrote: > On Fri, 2024-09-27 at 11:41 +0200, Roger Pau Monné wrote: >> On Fri, Sep 27, 2024 at 11:07:58AM +0200, >> oleksii.kurochko@xxxxxxxxx wrote: >>> On Fri, 2024-09-27 at 09:58 +0200, Roger Pau Monné wrote: >>>> On Thu, Sep 26, 2024 at 06:54:20PM +0200, Oleksii Kurochko wrote: >>>>> Introduce SIMPLE_DECL_SECTION to cover the case when >>>>> an architecture wants to declare a section without specifying >>>>> of load address for the section. >>>>> >>>>> Update x86/xen.lds.S to use SIMPLE_DECL_SECTION. >>>> >>>> No strong opinion, but I feel SIMPLE is not very descriptive. It >>>> might be better to do it the other way around: introduce a define >>>> for >>>> when the DECL_SECTION macro should specify a load address: >>>> DECL_SECTION_WITH_LADDR for example. >>> In the next patch, two sections are introduced: dt_dev_info and >>> acpi_dev_info. The definition of these sections has been made >>> common >>> and moved to xen.lds.h, and it looks like this: >>> +#define DT_DEV_INFO(secname) \ >>> + . = ALIGN(POINTER_ALIGN); \ >>> + DECL_SECTION(secname) { \ >>> + _sdevice = .; \ >>> + *(secname) \ >>> + _edevice = .; \ >>> + } :text >>> (A similar approach is used for ACPI, please refer to the next >>> patch in >>> this series.) >>> >>> For PPC, DECL_SECTION should specify a load address, whereas for >>> Arm >>> and RISC-V, it should not. >>> >>> With this generalization, the name of DECL_SECTION should have the >>> same >>> name in both cases, whether a load address needs to be specified or >>> not >> >> Oh, sorry, I think you misunderstood my suggestion. >> >> I'm not suggesting to introduce a new macro named >> DECL_SECTION_WITH_LADDR(), but rather to use DECL_SECTION_WITH_LADDR >> instead of SIMPLE_DECL_SECTION in order to signal whether >> DECL_SECTION() should specify a load address or not, iow: >> >> #ifdef DECL_SECTION_WITH_LADDR >> # define DECL_SECTION(x) x : AT(ADDR(x) - __XEN_VIRT_START) >> #else >> # define DECL_SECTION(x) x : >> #endif > Thanks for the clarification, I really misunderstood your initial > suggestion. > > I'm okay with the renaming; perhaps it will indeed make things a bit > clearer. > > If Jan doesn’t mind (since he gave the Ack), I'll rename the define in > the next patch version. > Jan, do you mind if I proceed with the renaming? I'm not overly fussed, so fee free to go ahead and retain my ack. Jan
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |