[Public]
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com>
> Sent: Friday, August 15, 2025 4:12 PM
> To: Stefano Stabellini <sstabell...@kernel.org>
> Cc: Penny, Zheng <penny.zh...@amd.com>; Huang, Ray
> <ray.hu...@amd.com>; Andrew Cooper <andrew.coop...@citrix.com>; Roger
> Pau Monné <roger....@citrix.com>; Anthony PERARD
> <anthony.per...@vates.tech>; Orzel, Michal <michal.or...@amd.com>; Julien
> Grall <jul...@xen.org>; xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 01/25] xen/x86: move domctl.o out of
> PV_SHIM_EXCLUSIVE
>
> On 15.08.2025 01:14, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > On Tue, 5 Aug 2025, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >> On 05.08.2025 05:38, Penny, Zheng wrote:
> >>> [Public]
> >>>
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> From: Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com>
> >>>> Sent: Monday, August 4, 2025 3:43 PM
> >>>> To: Penny, Zheng <penny.zh...@amd.com>
> >>>> Cc: Huang, Ray <ray.hu...@amd.com>; Andrew Cooper
> >>>> <andrew.coop...@citrix.com>; Roger Pau Monné
> >>>> <roger....@citrix.com>; Anthony PERARD <anthony.per...@vates.tech>;
> >>>> Orzel, Michal <michal.or...@amd.com>; Julien Grall
> >>>> <jul...@xen.org>; Stefano Stabellini <sstabell...@kernel.org>;
> >>>> xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
> >>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 01/25] xen/x86: move domctl.o out of
> >>>> PV_SHIM_EXCLUSIVE
> >>>>
> >>>> On 03.08.2025 11:47, Penny Zheng wrote:
> >>>>> In order to fix CI error of a randconfig picking both
> >>>>> PV_SHIM_EXCLUSIVE=y and HVM=y results in hvm.c being built, but
> >>>>> domctl.c not being built, which leaves a few functions, like
> >>>>> domctl_lock_acquire/release() undefined, causing linking to fail.
> >>>>> To fix that, we intend to move domctl.o out of the
> >>>>> PV_SHIM_EXCLUSIVE Makefile /hypercall-defs section, with this
> >>>>> adjustment, we also need to release redundant vnuma_destroy() stub
> >>>>> definition and paging_domctl hypercall-defs from PV_SHIM_EXCLUSIVE
> >>>>> guardian, to not break compilation Above change will leave dead
> >>>>> code in the shim binary temporarily and will be fixed with the
> >>>>> introduction of
> CONFIG_DOMCTL.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Fixes: 568f806cba4c ("xen/x86: remove "depends on
> >>>>> !PV_SHIM_EXCLUSIVE"")
> >>>>> Reported-by: Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com>
> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Penny Zheng <penny.zh...@amd.com>
> >>>>> ---
> >>>>> v1 -> v2:
> >>>>> - remove paging_domctl hypercall-defs
> >>>>
> >>>> And you've run this through a full round of testing this time, in
> >>>> isolation?
> >>>
> >>> This commit shall be committed together with "xen/x86: complement
> PG_log_dirty wrapping", (I've added in change log, idk why it didn't get
> delivered in
> the mail list in the last).
> >>
> >> And "committed together" still means the two at least build okay
> >> independently (i.e. allowing the build-each-commit job to succeed)?
> >>
> >> As to the missing indication thereof in the submission: Patch 01 has
> >> a revlog, so if anything was missing there you must have added it
> >> some other way. But the cover letter is lacking that information as
> >> well. (As indicated earlier, to increase the chance of such a remark
> >> actually being noticed, it's best put in both places.)
> >>
> >>> As PG_log_dirty is disabled on PV mode, paging_domctl() will still have
> "undefined reference" on PV mode, which gets fixed in "xen/x86: complement
> PG_log_dirty wrapping". I thought it better sits there.
> >>> If it doesn't comply with the commit policy, I'll move according fix here.
> >>
> >> Let me post a pair of patches dealing with part of the problem, in an
> >> imo (longer term) more desirable way.
> >
> > With this patch https://marc.info/?l=xen-devel&m=175438069103017
> > committed, can we go ahead with this patch, to resolve the outstanding
> > build problem?
>
> It first needs re-basing, I expect. There were also other anomalies, like a
> requirement to commit together with another patch.
>
I've prepared this commit only on the basis of
https://marc.info/?l=xen-devel&m=175438069103017 , and also with it, I think
another patch "xen/x86: complement PG_log_dirty wrapping" required to commit
together is also no longer needed.
> Jan
