On 10.09.2025 09:38, Penny Zheng wrote: > Arch-specific domain_set_time_offset() is responisble for > XEN_DOMCTL_settimeoffset domctl-op, and shall be wrapped with > CONFIG_MGMT_HYPERCALLS > Wrap XEN_DOMCTL_settimeoffset-case transiently with CONFIG_MGMT_HYPERCALLS, > and it will be removed when introducing CONFIG_MGMT_HYPERCALLS on the > common/domctl.c in the last.
As I keep seeing this same wording, I finally have to say something there as well: For one, the last patch doesn't introduce CONFIG_MGMT_HYPERCALLS on common/domctl.c. In instead makes the building of common/domctl.o conditional upon that control being set. And then, "in the last" (btw - last what?) is as unhelpful as "in the next patch" or "in the previous patch". When writing commit messages, you want to make sure they make sense all on their own, no matter in what order patches are committed (in particular possibly piecemeal and interspersed with other patches). Possible replacement wording: "Wrap XEN_DOMCTL_settimeoffset-case transiently with CONFIG_MGMT_HYPERCALLS, which will be removed again once common/domctl.o's building as a whole becomes dependent upon that setting." > Signed-off-by: Penny Zheng <penny.zh...@amd.com> Acked-by: Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com> # x86 (i.e. specifically _not_ the common code change) I also wonder what our (Misra related) position is towards leaving declarations around in cases like this one, where they're not in support of DCE-ing of code. Jan
