Re: [PATCH v3 14/15] xen/decompress: drop STATIC and INIT

[Julien Grall <julien@xxxxxxx>]

On 15/04/2021 15:32, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 15.04.2021 16:21, Julien Grall wrote:
> > On 26/01/2021 09:53, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > > All users have been removed in earlier changes.
> > This is not entirely correct given there is a still a user of...
> >
> > > Requested-by: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > v3: New.
> > >
> > > --- a/xen/arch/arm/efi/efi-dom0.c
> > > +++ b/xen/arch/arm/efi/efi-dom0.c
> > > @@ -28,7 +28,7 @@
> > >    #include <asm/setup.h>
> > >    #include <asm/acpi.h>
> > >    #include "../../../common/decompress.h"
> > > -#define XZ_EXTERN STATIC
> > > +#define XZ_EXTERN static
> > STATIC here. So maybe you want to say "all but one users"?
> Sigh. Of course I re-word this. But does it really matter? 
Just consistency between the diff and the commit message.

> The
> more that the thing here is more of an abuse than a proper use
> anyway? I didn't create this hackery ... In fact this odd use
> is why I made this a separate patch in the first place.
> > Also, for consistency, I think you want to either remove INITDATA here
> > or remove INIT in the patch that drop the last user.
> See my other reply - what matters, I think, is a consistent
> end result. I would really like to ask that I be left with some
> room on how precisely to get there.
I thought I would point out because we often request to shuffle code to 
make a series more logical.
This is not a must to me. The code is fine it is.

Acked-by: Julien Grall <jgrall@xxxxxxxxxx>

Cheers,

--
Julien Grall