On 28.07.2022 11:22, Boyoun Park wrote: > Hello, > > This patch added late_initcall to deal with > > some init functions which should be called > > after other init functions in start_xen. > > If this patch is added, > > then the original initcall in xen will be treated > > as early_initcall and the late_initcall > > which is added by this patch will be > > called sequentially. > > I cannot send patches through git send-email > > due to some security issues in my work. > > So intead, I just send the patches manually.
Which is fine, but you want to configure your mail client such that it doesn't mangle the patch. Albeit I see that to cover for that at least you've also attached both the patch and a cover letter. For a single patch a cover letter can normally be omitted, but if you don't then even if you're sending without "git send-email" you will want to send both as separate mails, with the patch being a reply to the cover letter thread root. > Sorry for the inconvenience. > > I made this patch during using xen for a project. > > And I want to share it and ask for review. > > Boyoun Park. > > From: Boyoun Park <[email protected]> > > To: [email protected] > > Cc: Stefano Stabellini <[email protected]> > > Cc: Julien Grall <[email protected]> > > Cc: Bertrand Marquis <[email protected]> > > Cc: Volodymyr Babchuk <[email protected]> > > Cc: Andrew Cooper <[email protected]> > > Cc: George Dunlap <[email protected]> > > Cc: Jan Beulich <[email protected]> > > Cc: Wei Liu <[email protected]> > > Cc: "Roger Pau Monné" <[email protected]> > > Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2022 12:57:59 +0900 > > Subject: [PATCH v1] xen: add late init call in start_xen > > This patch added late_initcall section in init.data. > > The late initcall would be called after initcall > > in the start_xen function. > > Some initializing works on priority should be run > > in do_initcalls and other non-prioritized works > > would be run in do_late_initcalls. > > To call some functions by late_initcall, > > then it is possible by using > > __late_initcall(/*Function Name*/); > > Signed-off-by: Boyoun Park <[email protected]> So I could imagine this patch to be in a series where a subsequent patch then adds an actual use of the new functionality. Without that what you're proposing is to add dead code. > @@ -1964,6 +1966,7 @@ void __init noreturn __start_xen(unsigned long mbi_p) > > bsp_info = get_cpu_info_from_stack((unsigned long)bsp_stack); > > *bsp_info = *info; > > + /* Jump to the 1:1 virtual mappings of cpu0_stack. */ > > asm volatile ("mov %[stk], %%rsp; jmp %c[fn]" :: > > [stk] "g" (&bsp_info->guest_cpu_user_regs), > > [fn] "i" (reinit_bsp_stack) : "memory"); How does this addition of a comment relate to the purpose of the patch? Jan
