On 1/29/21 1:31 AM, Richard Henderson wrote: > On 1/27/21 11:28 PM, Claudio Fontana wrote: >> + /* >> + * NB: this should be covered by CONFIG_TCG, but it is unsafe to do it >> here, >> + * as this header is included by both ss_specific and ss_common code, >> + * leading to potential differences in the data structure between >> modules. >> + * We could always keep it last, but it seems safer to just leave this >> + * pointer NULL for non-TCG. >> + */ >> + struct TCGCPUOps *tcg_ops; > > Sorry, I'm going to unqueue the patch set. > > I first thought this was fixing up something done already, fixing an existing > bug. > > But it's something done in patch 1, and therefore the patch set needs to be > re-worked to use this pointer to begin, for the exact reasons detailed above. > Otherwise it would appear this breaks bisection. > > > r~ >
Hello Richard, I reworked this as suggested by Eduardo:, by not making the fields conditional at all in the first part of the series. This should remove any doubt about potential issues. In no case is bisection compromised. Are you ok with this? Thanks, Claudio
