From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.6 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,NICE_REPLY_A,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D99CDC433DB for ; Fri, 26 Feb 2021 15:33:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.xenproject.org (lists.xenproject.org [192.237.175.120]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7A6C764EC4 for ; Fri, 26 Feb 2021 15:33:27 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 7A6C764EC4 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=xen-devel-bounces@lists.xenproject.org Received: from list by lists.xenproject.org with outflank-mailman.90411.171136 (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1lFf7E-0001iS-2k; Fri, 26 Feb 2021 15:33:16 +0000 X-Outflank-Mailman: Message body and most headers restored to incoming version Received: by outflank-mailman (output) from mailman id 90411.171136; Fri, 26 Feb 2021 15:33:16 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.xenproject.org) by lists.xenproject.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1lFf7D-0001iL-Vp; Fri, 26 Feb 2021 15:33:15 +0000 Received: by outflank-mailman (input) for mailman id 90411; Fri, 26 Feb 2021 15:33:14 +0000 Received: from us1-rack-iad1.inumbo.com ([172.99.69.81]) by lists.xenproject.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1lFf7C-0001iG-Lz for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Fri, 26 Feb 2021 15:33:14 +0000 Received: from mail-pl1-x62b.google.com (unknown [2607:f8b0:4864:20::62b]) by us1-rack-iad1.inumbo.com (Halon) with ESMTPS id 7c8ab0b9-3fa0-49c8-9e6d-934efea98b8a; Fri, 26 Feb 2021 15:33:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-pl1-x62b.google.com with SMTP id a24so5466551plm.11 for ; Fri, 26 Feb 2021 07:33:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from ?IPv6:2601:1c2:4f80:d230::5? ([2601:1c2:4f80:d230::5]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id v129sm9955277pfc.110.2021.02.26.07.33.11 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 26 Feb 2021 07:33:11 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org List-Id: Xen developer discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xenproject.org Precedence: list Sender: "Xen-devel" X-Inumbo-ID: 7c8ab0b9-3fa0-49c8-9e6d-934efea98b8a DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:organization:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=Kdw3Sjv+WXzbm/SAcdz2KeQ0wofI8c3b0xhYkexR8PM=; b=Pogd6tvRaDBWAjFxqTsWv4pxN5mC26G7WTyBMWjoH5vyzg7WCxLe5k4jC4m2lSEUAl 7aPLoxdTllnmop78hTvyzZxfRZFCzM2AahO/55MTyRn27x69uYue3l/PXECOF93mJsjl 11CD/h/WvpU2iLQIRHbF5wj2UHyIK377HarrqxU4cQ1gZ3h1M/AjMQml1R6JHSSXQO8W lrE/ZGOrL1ZDm4jeBjp88/geCwVaDGvOjPeHgcTke08GnI9NV9pFUCQ/0kMbBUjX2egZ w5eaB6W+V4jN3NeheCAK9suM5QhVtx6Ie5kOP+hEc65MhcNQurs9GTuHeOBvz6F7tgNc RasQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:organization :message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to :content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Kdw3Sjv+WXzbm/SAcdz2KeQ0wofI8c3b0xhYkexR8PM=; b=LAkrfUZ9sEBFbhNUG0T/jtaFvvWPCsGuWHaddieM6Ka9fGI0PboESp62nY+Tf+BM8d xmYVaV/5+iZrj9Wu4OHeqVrYE8TaWX+M40egpR2PaabzSbZVbqoyua3PBizGy9ln5y7+ caqfsmZ6qJxre/RGjNRYA8gYG8REhiawcaOuUfz8Xuc2DMQDZAUGH5OgdQdE92+5jowT 4oCBqaQ3hHWSZutqRwhAOM5mwfh8Rb6wKF9i48GXg/di2Xl8EsiiKYwqZb/kurXT7FGh /BWZFf7pBDKzsw3ys2w+766XyfYvolxpBxo81yziiBT7PNzwpcOQHbN0zz6qscz/Hvby X6IA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533Bv4gmjdbyWQaUTyiYkO6Bu6tGjxVykj+u9TVqyU1rIFYqBYpj r/BqyJG/BKwUJpINQEjAafo= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyPy00Gja5UfZEBdttwHCJ/qYuf5xI7H4KJe4eyVXZV4zll+H/+sHr7dFiIMXEBXukngKd05Q== X-Received: by 2002:a17:90b:4d05:: with SMTP id mw5mr3990126pjb.217.1614353592838; Fri, 26 Feb 2021 07:33:12 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [PATCH for-next 5/6] xen: Add files needed for minimal riscv build To: Andrew Cooper , Connor Davis , xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org Cc: George Dunlap , Ian Jackson , Jan Beulich , Julien Grall , Stefano Stabellini , Wei Liu , Tamas K Lengyel , Alexandru Isaila , Petre Pircalabu References: <7652ce3486c026a3a9f7d850170ea81ba8a18bdb.1614265718.git.connojdavis@gmail.com> <9b441529-c5a4-4299-1155-869bcdab06b0@citrix.com> From: Bob Eshleman Organization: Vates SAS Message-ID: <0d58bca1-0998-1114-d023-0d8a5a193961@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2021 07:30:09 -0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.6.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <9b441529-c5a4-4299-1155-869bcdab06b0@citrix.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On 2/25/21 3:14 PM, Andrew Cooper wrote: > > Well - this is orders of magnitude more complicated than it ought to > be.  An empty head.S doesn't (well - shouldn't) need the overwhelming > majority of this. > > Do you know how all of this is being pulled in?  Is it from attempting > to compile common/ by any chance? > > Now is also an excellent opportunity to nuke the x86isms which have > escaped into common code (debugger and xenoprof in particular), and > rethink some of our common/arch split. > > When it comes to header files specifically, I want to start using > xen/arch/$ARCH/include/asm/ and retrofit this to x86 and ARM.  It has > two important properties - first, that you don't need to symlink the > tree to make compilation work, and second that patches touching multiple > architectures have hunks ordered in a more logical way. > > ~Andrew > I think we may have envisioned different things here.... I was under the impression that we wanted to implicate common, so that changes there that broke the RISC-V build would present themselves on CI... and to demonstrate which "arch_*" calls common expects to exist. It sounds like you'd prefer no common to start and none of the arch_* calls it relies on?