On 16.10.2024 11:15, Oleksii Kurochko wrote: > To avoid the following linkage fail the stub for share_xen_page_with_guest() > is introduced:
What do you intend to express with "is introduced"? Is there a problem now? Would there be a problem with subsequent changes? I'm entirely fine with adding that stub, but the description should make clear why /when exactly it's needed. Jan > riscv64-linux-gnu-ld: prelink.o: in function `tasklet_kill': > /build/xen/common/tasklet.c:176: undefined reference to > `share_xen_page_with_guest' > riscv64-linux-gnu-ld: ./.xen-syms.0: hidden symbol > `share_xen_page_with_guest' isn't defined > riscv64-linux-gnu-ld: final link failed: bad value > > $ find . -name \*.o | while read F; do nm $F | grep share_xen_page_with_guest > && echo $F; done > U share_xen_page_with_guest > ./xen/common/built_in.o > U share_xen_page_with_guest > ./xen/common/trace.o > U share_xen_page_with_guest > ./xen/prelink.o > > Despite the linker fingering tasklet.c (very likely a toolchain bug), > it's trace.o which has the undefined reference. > > Looking at trace.i, there is call of share_xen_page_with_guest() in > share_xen_page_with_privileged_guests() from asm/mm.h. > > Signed-off-by: Oleksii Kurochko <[email protected]> > --- > xen/arch/riscv/stubs.c | 10 ++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/xen/arch/riscv/stubs.c b/xen/arch/riscv/stubs.c > index 5951b0ce91..c9a590b225 100644 > --- a/xen/arch/riscv/stubs.c > +++ b/xen/arch/riscv/stubs.c > @@ -2,7 +2,9 @@ > #include <xen/cpumask.h> > #include <xen/domain.h> > #include <xen/irq.h> > +#include <xen/mm.h> > #include <xen/nodemask.h> > +#include <xen/sched.h> > #include <xen/sections.h> > #include <xen/time.h> > #include <public/domctl.h> > @@ -409,3 +411,11 @@ unsigned long get_upper_mfn_bound(void) > { > BUG_ON("unimplemented"); > } > + > +/* mm.c */ > + > +void share_xen_page_with_guest(struct page_info *page, struct domain *d, > + enum XENSHARE_flags flags) > +{ > + BUG_ON("unimplemented"); > +}
