Re: [PATCH v2 02/10] xen/x86: move reusable EFI stub functions from x86 to common

From: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
To: Wei Chen <Wei.Chen@arm.com>
Cc: nd <nd@arm.com>, "Andrew Cooper" <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>,
	"Roger Pau Monné" <roger.pau@citrix.com>, "Wei Liu" <wl@xen.org>,
	"xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org" <xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 02/10] xen/x86: move reusable EFI stub functions from x86 to common
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2022 07:54:23 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <bcb8a2e1-7670-8a53-4d81-114a30963a66@suse.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <PAXPR08MB74202E608E9A967458664E7A9EFA9@PAXPR08MB7420.eurprd08.prod.outlook.com>

On 27.04.2022 04:56, Wei Chen wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
>> Sent: 2022年4月26日 22:31
>>
>> On 26.04.2022 12:37, Wei Chen wrote:
>>> On 2022/4/26 16:53, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 18.04.2022 11:07, Wei Chen wrote:
>>>>> diff --git a/xen/arch/x86/efi/stub.c b/xen/arch/x86/efi/stub-x86.c
>>>>> similarity index 71%
>>>>> rename from xen/arch/x86/efi/stub.c
>>>>> rename to xen/arch/x86/efi/stub-x86.c
>>>>> index 9984932626..2cd5c8d4dc 100644
>>>>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/efi/stub.c
>>>>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/efi/stub-x86.c
>>>>
>>>> I'm not happy to see a file named *x86*.[ch] under x86/. I think the
>>>> x86 file wants to simply include the common one (and the symlinking
>>>> be suppressed when a real file already exists). Naming the common
>>>> file stub-common.c wouldn't help, as a similar anomaly would result.
>>>>
>>>
>>> How about using stub-arch.c to indicate this stub file only contains
>>> the arch specific contents? However, we cannot predict what link files
>>> will be created in this directory in the future. If someone needs to
>>> create a stub-arch.c link file in the future, can we solve it at that
>>> time?  Or do you have any suggestions?
>>
>> I did provide my suggestion. I do not like stub-arch.c any better than
>> stub-x86.c or stub-common.c.
>>
> 
> With my limited English level, I can only see that you don't like this, but
> I can't get what you want clearly from your comments. I can only guess:
> For "x86 file wants to simply include the common one":
> 1. Did you mean, x86 still keeps it stub.c and includes all its original
>    contents. The common/efi/stub.c link behavior will be ignored, because
>    of x86 has a real stub.c? And common/efi/stub.c still can works for
>    other architectures like Arm whom doesn't have a real stub.c?
>    But in previous version's discussion, I had said I created a stub.c in
>    Arm/efi, and copied Arm required functions from x86/efi/stub.c. But
>    people didn't like it. If my guess is correct, I don't know what is
>    the essential difference between the two approaches.
> 2. Keeps stub.c in x86/efi, and use it to include common/stub.c.
>    I think this may not be the right understanding, but I can't think
>    of any other understanding.

2 is what I've been suggesting.

Jan