|
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [PATCH] xen: Put wait.c behind CONFIG_WAIT
On 2026-02-12 02:38, Jan Beulich wrote: On 11.02.2026 18:30, Andrew Cooper wrote:On 11/02/2026 5:01 pm, Jason Andryuk wrote:wait.c is only used by vm_event.c. Make CONFIG_VM_EVENT select CONFIG_WAIT, and use CONFIG_WAIT to control building it. Provide stubs of functions called from common code. entry.S needs an ifdef to hide the symbol from the assembly. Also conditionalize .waitqueue_vcpu in struct vcpu to save space. Signed-off-by: Jason Andryuk <jason.andryuk@xxxxxxx>I'd really rather see the API/ABI changes required to purge wait.c entirely, but I guess this will do in the short term. Two things want further thought. First, because ARM uses per-vCPU stacks not per-pCPU stacks, it doesn't need this infrastructure in the first place, but it looks like it's still compiled in and half wired up. I suppose you don't notice because you compile out VM_EVENT on ARM too?But if we want it compiled out altogether on Arm, ...Second CONFIG_WAIT isn't great name because there are many things it could be. I'd be tempted to just reuse CONFIG_VM_EVENT and go without CONFIG_WAIT. I do not want to see any new users of wait.c, and it will disappear at some point.... don't we need a separate kconfig control, for it to be selected only on x86 (or for it to be dependent on x86, and then imply-ed)? Imo CONFIG_WAITQUEUE would be okay, as long as it won't have a prompt. We'd then simply want to prevent further select-s / imply-s to appear. ARM VM_EVENT=y won't link without wait.o. Undefined references to: wake_up_nr prepare_to_wait finish_wait destroy_waitqueue_head init_waitqueue_headSo I think that points to re-using my original patch, but with either CONFIG_WAITQUEUE or CONFIG_VM_EVENT. Since CONFIG_VM_EVENT is the only user, and we don't want further uses, I would use that. But I am open to either. Regards, Jason
|
![]() |
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |