From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@citrix.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 09/10] x86: check kexec relocation code fits
 in a page
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 17:38:29 +0100
Message-ID: <1372178309.18901.88.camel@zakaz.uk.xensource.com>
References: <1372095741-27012-1-git-send-email-david.vrabel@citrix.com>
	<1372095741-27012-10-git-send-email-david.vrabel@citrix.com>
	<51C9720702000078000E03A3@nat28.tlf.novell.com>
	<51C9636D.70703@citrix.com>
	<51C99D6302000078000E052B@nat28.tlf.novell.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org>
In-Reply-To: <51C99D6302000078000E052B@nat28.tlf.novell.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xen.org>
List-Help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
To: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com>
Cc: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>, Daniel Kiper <daniel.kiper@oracle.com>, Keir Fraser <keir@xen.org>, David Vrabel <david.vrabel@citrix.com>, xen-devel@lists.xen.org
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

On Tue, 2013-06-25 at 12:38 +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 25.06.13 at 11:31, Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com> wrote:
> > On 25/06/13 09:33, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>>>> On 24.06.13 at 19:42, David Vrabel <david.vrabel@citrix.com> wrote:
> >>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/xen.lds.S
> >>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/xen.lds.S
> >>> @@ -186,3 +186,7 @@ SECTIONS
> >>>    .stab.indexstr 0 : { *(.stab.indexstr) }
> >>>    .comment 0 : { *(.comment) }
> >>>  }
> >>> +
> >>> +#ifdef CONFIG_KEXEC
> >>> +ASSERT(__kexec_reloc_size <= PAGE_SIZE, "kexec control code is too large")
> >>> +#endif
> >> I don't recall having seen a mechanism to disable CONFIG_KEXEC, so
> >> why the conditional?
> > 
> > CONFIG_KEXEC exists in include/asm-x86/config.h, but it turns out not to
> > compile if you disable it.
> 
> This is more of an announcement than a knob for disabling (such
> that e.g. generic code can exclude respective pieces from getting
> built).

It would have been better to call these things HAVE_FOO rather than
CONFIG_FOO to avoid the implication of configurability, but that horse
is long gone...

> 
> > I for one would not mind in the slightest if CONFIG_KEXEC disappeared.
> 
> We should keep it at least as long as ARM doesn't support it, and
> perhaps even after to be prepared for new ports that (initially)
> don't have the necessary support bits.
> 
> Jan
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Xen-devel mailing list
> Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
> http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel