On 11.05.2023 19:09, Oleksii Kurochko wrote:
> bss clear cycle requires proper alignment of __bss_start.
>
> Signed-off-by: Oleksii Kurochko <oleksii.kuroc...@gmail.com>
Reviewed-by: Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com>
with two remarks, though:
While probably not very important yet for RISC-V (until there is at
least enough functionality to, say, boot Dom0), you may want to get
used to add Fixes: tags in cases like this one.
> --- a/xen/arch/riscv/xen.lds.S
> +++ b/xen/arch/riscv/xen.lds.S
> @@ -137,6 +137,7 @@ SECTIONS
> __init_end = .;
>
> .bss : { /* BSS */
> + . = ALIGN(POINTER_ALIGN);
> __bss_start = .;
> *(.bss.stack_aligned)
> . = ALIGN(PAGE_SIZE);
While independent of the change here, this ALIGN() visible in context
is unnecessary, afaict. ALIGN() generally only makes sense when
there's a linker-script-defined symbol right afterwards. Taking the
case here, any contributions to .bss.page_aligned have to specify
proper alignment themselves anyway (or else they'd be dependent upon
linking order). Just like there's (correctly) no ALIGN(STACK_SIZE)
ahead of *(.bss.stack_aligned).
The change here might be a good opportunity to drop that ALIGN() at
the same time. So long as you (and the maintainers) agree, I guess
the adjustment could easily be made while committing.
Jan
