On 07.11.2023 11:30, Nicola Vetrini wrote:
> --- a/xen/arch/x86/boot/cmdline.c
> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/boot/cmdline.c
> @@ -31,6 +31,7 @@ asm (
> );
>
> #include <xen/kconfig.h>
> +#include <xen/compiler.h>
> #include "defs.h"
> #include "video.h"
Please respect the goal of alphabetically sorted groups of #include-s.
> --- a/xen/arch/x86/boot/reloc.c
> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/boot/reloc.c
> @@ -33,6 +33,8 @@ asm (
> #include "../../../include/xen/kconfig.h"
> #include <public/arch-x86/hvm/start_info.h>
>
> +#include <xen/compiler.h>
Same here, put on top of the tidying patch I just sent.
> --- a/xen/common/efi/boot.c
> +++ b/xen/common/efi/boot.c
> @@ -1254,9 +1254,8 @@ static void __init efi_exit_boot(EFI_HANDLE
> ImageHandle, EFI_SYSTEM_TABLE *Syste
> efi_fw_vendor = (void *)efi_fw_vendor + DIRECTMAP_VIRT_START;
> }
>
> -/* SAF-1-safe */
> -void EFIAPI __init noreturn efi_start(EFI_HANDLE ImageHandle,
> - EFI_SYSTEM_TABLE *SystemTable)
> +void asmlinkage EFIAPI __init noreturn efi_start(EFI_HANDLE ImageHandle,
> + EFI_SYSTEM_TABLE
> *SystemTable)
> {
> static EFI_GUID __initdata loaded_image_guid = LOADED_IMAGE_PROTOCOL;
> static EFI_GUID __initdata shim_lock_guid = SHIM_LOCK_PROTOCOL_GUID;
Besides this patch not working on its own (as already said by Julien,
you want to explicitly state dependencies), the change above makes me
wonder about efi_multiboot2(): Neither the earlier series nor the
change here are touching either of the two instances of the function.
Was that merely an oversight, or is there another reason?
Jan
