On Mon, 2023-09-18 at 11:51 +0300, Oleksii wrote: > On Thu, 2023-09-14 at 17:08 +0200, Jan Beulich wrote: > > On 14.09.2023 16:56, Oleksii Kurochko wrote: > > > Based on two patch series [1] and [2], the idea of which is to > > > provide minimal > > > amount of things for a complete Xen build, a large amount of > > > headers are the same > > > or almost the same, so it makes sense to move them to asm- > > > generic. > > > > > > Also, providing such stub headers should help future > > > architectures > > > to add > > > a full Xen build. > > > > > > [1] > > > https://lore.kernel.org/xen-devel/[email protected]/ > > > [2] > > > https://lore.kernel.org/xen-devel/[email protected]/ > > > > > > Oleksii Kurochko (29): > > > xen/asm-generic: introduce stub header spinlock.h > > > > At the example of this, personally I think this goes too far. > > Headers > > in > > asm-generic should be for the case where an arch elects to not > > implement > > certain functionality. Clearly spinlocks are required uniformly. > It makes sense. Then I will back to the option [2] where I introduced > all this headers as part of RISC-V architecture. And I will review the current patch series probably it is still can be something moved to asm-generic.
> > ~ Oleksii
