On 14.08.2025 20:09, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 14/08/2025 9:55 am, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 13.08.2025 13:25, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>>> On 12/08/2025 10:19 am, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 08.08.2025 22:23, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>>>>> Since commit a35816b5cae8 ("x86/traps: Introduce early_traps_init() and
>>>>> simplify setup"), load_system_tables() is called later on the BSP, so the
>>>>> SYS_STATE_early_boot check can be dropped from the safety BUG_ON().
>>>>>
>>>>> Move the BUILD_BUG_ON() into build_assertions(),
>>>> I'm not quite convinced of this move - having the related BUILD_BUG_ON()
>>>> and BUG_ON() next to each other would seem better to me.
>>> I don't see a specific reason for them to be together, and the comment
>>> explains what's going on.
>>>
>>> With FRED, we want a related BUILD_BUG_ON(), but there's no equivalent
>>> BUG_ON() because MSR_RSP_SL0 will #GP on being misaligned.
>> That BUILD_BUG_ON() could then sit next to the MSR write? Unless of course
>> that ends up sitting in an assembly source.
>
> It's the bottom hunk in patch 14, which you've looked at now.
>
> Personally, I think both BUILD_BUG_ON()'s should be together, because
> they are related.
I don't really agree, but I also won't insist on my preference to be followed.
IOW please keep as is.
Jan
