Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] x86/cpu-policy: move CPU policy library code

[Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

On 23.02.2026 20:00, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 02/02/2026 4:26 pm, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 02.02.2026 16:47, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>>> On 07/01/2026 2:17 pm, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> diff --git a/xen/arch/x86/arch.mk b/xen/arch/x86/arch.mk
>>>> index 0203138a819a..be6c76d2934b 100644
>>>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/arch.mk
>>>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/arch.mk
>>>> @@ -4,6 +4,7 @@
>>>>  export XEN_IMG_OFFSET := 0x200000
>>>>  
>>>>  ARCH_LIBS-y += arch/x86/lib/lib.a
>>>> +ALL_LIBS-y += arch/x86/lib/cpu-policy/lib.a
>>> This wants to extend ARCH_LIBS-y surely?  Is this a rebasing oversight?
>> No, this was deliberate. The functions here are different from those in
>> arch/x86/lib/lib.a. We don't need to fear collision with "common code"
>> ones. Hence I preferred to use the more "normal" placement into what's
>> passed to the linker.
> 
> I agree that we don't have the explicit ordering requirement that we
> have with arch/x86/lib/lib.a.
> 
> But, it still reads as bogus to be putting arch/x86/lib/cpu-policy/lib.a
> in the non-ARCH list.
> 
> What difference is there having this a little earlier in the linker
> arguments?  Nothing AFAICT.

Indeed. The sole reason why I'd prefer things as presented is that putting
stuff in ARCH_LIBS should imo be the special case (i.e. requiring a special
reason), while putting things in ALL_LIBS should be the default.

Jan