On Fri, 2024-01-26 at 10:48 +0100, Jan Beulich wrote: > On 26.01.2024 10:44, Oleksii wrote: > > On Tue, 2024-01-23 at 14:37 +0100, Jan Beulich wrote: > > > On 23.01.2024 13:34, Oleksii wrote: > > > > On Tue, 2024-01-23 at 12:14 +0100, Jan Beulich wrote: > > > > > On 22.12.2023 16:13, Oleksii Kurochko wrote: > > > > > > --- a/xen/common/Kconfig > > > > > > +++ b/xen/common/Kconfig > > > > > > @@ -47,6 +47,9 @@ config ARCH_MAP_DOMAIN_PAGE > > > > > > config GENERIC_BUG_FRAME > > > > > > bool > > > > > > > > > > > > +config GENERIC_FIND_NEXT_BIT > > > > > > + bool > > > > > > > > > > There's no need for this, as ... > > > > > > > > > > > --- a/xen/lib/Makefile > > > > > > +++ b/xen/lib/Makefile > > > > > > @@ -3,6 +3,7 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_X86) += x86/ > > > > > > lib-y += bsearch.o > > > > > > lib-y += ctors.o > > > > > > lib-y += ctype.o > > > > > > +lib-$(CONFIG_GENERIC_FIND_NEXT_BIT) += find-next-bit.o > > > > > > > > > > ... you're moving this to lib/. Or have you encountered any > > > > > issue > > > > > with building this uniformly, and you forgot to mention this > > > > > in > > > > > the description? > > > > I didn't check. My intention was to provide opportunity to > > > > check if > > > > an > > > > architecture want to use generic version or not. Otherwise, I > > > > expected > > > > that we will have multiple definiotion of the funcion. > > > > > > > > But considering that they are all defined under #ifdef...#endif > > > > we > > > > can > > > > remove the declaration of the config GENERIC_FIND_NEXT_BIT. > > > > > > What #ifdef / #endif would matter here? Whats in lib/ is intended > > > to > > > be > > > generic anyway. And what is in the resulting lib.a won't be used > > > by > > > an > > > arch if it has an arch-specific implementation. Problems could > > > arise > > > if > > > an arch had an inline function colliding with the out-of-line > > > one. > > > But > > > that's about the old case where I could see a need to make the > > > building > > > of one of the objects conditional. And you'll note that withing > > > this > > > Makefile there are pretty few conditionals. > > We will have such issue with PPC: > > ... > > static inline unsigned long find_next_bit(const unsigned long > > *addr, > > unsigned long size, > > unsigned long offset) > > ... > > > > It looks like an introduction of new config for find_next_bit is > > needed. > > > > Does a better option exist? Would making find_next_bit non inline > > non > > inline for PPC better? > > Isn't that generic code anyway? If so, that also wants replacing by > the generic library function(s). Shawn - I have to admit I have a > hard time seeing why this was introduced as inline functions in the > first place. You are right, it is generic one too. I'll replace it too.
~ Oleksii