On 23.09.2024 13:53, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 23/09/2024 12:48 pm, oleksii.kuroc...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Mon, 2024-09-23 at 12:56 +0200, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>> On 19.09.2024 17:59, Oleksii Kurochko wrote:
>>>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/xen.lds.S
>>>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/xen.lds.S
>>>> @@ -321,14 +321,7 @@ SECTIONS
>>>> DECL_SECTION(.bss) {
>>>> __bss_start = .;
>>>> *(.bss.page_aligned*)
>>>> - . = ALIGN(PAGE_SIZE);
>>>> - __per_cpu_start = .;
>>>> - *(.bss.percpu.page_aligned)
>>>> - *(.bss.percpu)
>>>> - . = ALIGN(SMP_CACHE_BYTES);
>>>> - *(.bss.percpu.read_mostly)
>>>> - . = ALIGN(SMP_CACHE_BYTES);
>>>> - __per_cpu_data_end = .;
>>>> + PERCPU_SECTION
>>>> *(.bss .bss.*)
>>>> . = ALIGN(POINTER_ALIGN);
>>>> __bss_end = .;
>>> Like the _SEC in the other patch I question _SECTION here, albeit for
>>> a different
>>> reason: This is no separate output section, and it's more than one
>>> kind of input
>>> ones. Perhaps PERCPU_DATA? With that
>>> Acked-by: Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com>
>> Sure, I will drop _SECTION here too. Thanks.
>
> Can we call it PERCPU_BSS? Just to highlight the fact that it really is
> BSS, and not initialised DATA.
Fine with me.
Jan
