On Fri, 4 Mar 2016, Shannon Zhao wrote:
> On 2016年03月04日 18:55, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > On Fri, 4 Mar 2016, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>>>> > >>> On 04.03.16 at 07:15, <zhaoshenglong@huawei.com> wrote:
> >>> > > From: Shannon Zhao <shannon.zhao@linaro.org>
> >>> > > 
> >>> > > Estimate the memory required for loading acpi/efi tables in Dom0. Make
> >>> > > the length of each table aligned with 64bit. Alloc the pages to store
> >>> > > the new created EFI and ACPI tables and free these pages when
> >>> > > destroying domain.
> >>> > > 
> >>> > > Cc: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
> >>> > > Signed-off-by: Parth Dixit <parth.dixit@linaro.org>
> >>> > > Signed-off-by: Shannon Zhao <shannon.zhao@linaro.org>
> >> > 
> >> > Since the pattern repeats I finally have to ask: Who is the author
> >> > of a patch with such a set of tag? You (From:) or Parth (first S-o-b)?
> >> > 
> >>> > > --- a/xen/common/efi/boot.c
> >>> > > +++ b/xen/common/efi/boot.c
> >>> > > @@ -1151,6 +1151,13 @@ efi_start(EFI_HANDLE ImageHandle, EFI_SYSTEM_TABLE *SystemTable)
> >>> > >      for( ; ; ); /* not reached */
> >>> > >  }
> >>> > >  
> >>> > > +#if defined (CONFIG_ACPI) && defined (CONFIG_ARM)
> >>> > > +struct meminfo __init *get_acpi_meminfo(void)
> >>> > > +{
> >>> > > +    return &acpi_mem;
> >>> > > +}
> >>> > > +#endif
> >> > 
> >> > No such hackery in common code please, if at all avoidable. If ARM
> >> > maintainers are fine with this in their code, it could be put into
> >> > ARM's efi-boot.h.
> > I am OK with that. If you move it under arch/arm, then drop the ifdef
> > CONFIG_ARM.
> > 
> While I want to include efi-boot.h in efi-dom.c firstly, but there are
> many defined-but-not-used errors because there are some of functions in
> efi-boot.h which are not used in efi-dom0.c.
> So how could we solve such a problem?
 
It is probably not a good idea to include efi-boot.h in efi-dom.c. Why
are you trying to do that?