Re: [PATCH 2/3] x86/boot: Reuse code to relocate trampoline

[Frediano Ziglio <frediano.ziglio@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, Oct 7, 2024 at 8:03 AM Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 05.10.2024 15:21, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> > On 05/10/2024 9:02 am, Frediano Ziglio wrote:
> >> --- a/xen/arch/x86/boot/Makefile
> >> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/boot/Makefile
> >> @@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
> >> -obj-bin-y += head.o cbundle.o
> >> +obj-bin-y += head.o cbundle.o reloc-trampoline.x64.o
> >
> > Ah.  I think the $(obj)/%.x64.o rule you had in the previous patch wants
> > introducing here.
> >
> > That said, x64 is the one name for 64bit that we reliably don't use.
> > Also...
> >
> >> -head-bin-objs := cmdline.o reloc.o
> >> +head-bin-objs := cmdline.o reloc.o reloc-trampoline.o
> >
> > ... head-bin-objs isn't really correct now seeing as they're not
> > binaries in head.S.  Also ...
> >
> >>  nocov-y   += $(head-bin-objs)
> >>  noubsan-y += $(head-bin-objs)
> >
> > The no$(foo)'s needs extending to the 64bit objects too.  They're also
> > used early enough to explode.
> >
> > In Xen, 64bit objects are the norm, and it's 32bit ones which are the
> > exception, so how about we special case *.i386.o instead.  Then
> >
> > obj32 := cmdline.i386.o
> > obj32 += reloc.i386.o
> > obj32 += reloc-trampoline.i386.o
>
> I'd like to advocate for ix86 or i686. i386 gives a wrong impression imo.
>
> Jan

Why not simply x86 ? We already use it.

Frediano