Re: [PATCH 4/4] xen/virtual-region: Drop setup_virtual_regions()

[Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>]

On 18.03.2024 14:49, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 18/03/2024 1:29 pm, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 18.03.2024 12:04, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>>> --- a/xen/common/virtual_region.c
>>> +++ b/xen/common/virtual_region.c
>>> @@ -39,6 +39,11 @@ static struct virtual_region core = {
>>>          { __start_bug_frames_2, __stop_bug_frames_2 },
>>>          { __start_bug_frames_3, __stop_bug_frames_3 },
>>>      },
>>> +
>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_X86
>>> +    .ex = __start___ex_table,
>>> +    .ex_end = __stop___ex_table,
>>> +#endif
>>>  };
>>>  
>>>  /* Becomes irrelevant when __init sections are cleared. */
>>> @@ -57,6 +62,11 @@ static struct virtual_region core_init __initdata = {
>>>          { __start_bug_frames_2, __stop_bug_frames_2 },
>>>          { __start_bug_frames_3, __stop_bug_frames_3 },
>>>      },
>>> +
>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_X86
>>> +    .ex = __start___ex_table,
>>> +    .ex_end = __stop___ex_table,
>>> +#endif
>>>  };
>> My main reservation here is this x86-specific code in a common file.
>> Are we certain both RISC-V and PPC will get away without needing to
>> touch this? If so, I might consider ack-ing. But really I'd prefer if
>> this could be minimally abstracted, via e.g. CONFIG_HAS_EXTABLE
>> (selected by x86 only for now).
> 
> This isn't the first bit of CONFIG_X86 in this file.  However, I'd not
> spotted that we have CONFIG_HAS_EX_TABLE already.  I can swap.

At which point:
Reviewed-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>

Jan