On 30.03.2022 15:24, Michal Orzel wrote: > On 30.03.2022 14:53, Jan Beulich wrote: >> On 30.03.2022 14:13, Michal Orzel wrote: >>> On 30.03.2022 13:57, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>> On 30.03.2022 13:04, Michal Orzel wrote: >>>>> On 30.03.2022 12:42, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>>>> On 30.03.2022 12:32, Julien Grall wrote: >>>>>>> Renaming to PE_COFF may help to avoid the confusion with CONFIG_EFI. >>>>>>> That said, it would possibly make more difficult to associate the flag >>>>>>> with "linking an EFI binary". >>>>>> >>>>>> Indeed. And EFI_PE_COFF is getting a little unwieldy for my taste. >>>>>> >>>>>>> I think some documentaion about the define EFI would be help so there >>>>>>> are no more confusion between CONFIG_EFI/EFI. But I am not sure where >>>>>>> to >>>>>>> put it. Maybe at the top of the header? >>>>>> >>>>>> That's perhaps the best place, yes. >>>>>> >>>>> In this case how about the following comment at the top of xen.lds.h: >>>>> >>>>> "To avoid any confusion about EFI macro used in this header vs EFI >>>>> support, >>>>> the former is used when linking a native EFI (i.e. PE/COFF) binary, >>>>> whereas >>>>> the latter means support for generating EFI binary. >>>> >>>> No, that's the case on Arm only. As Julien suggested, it is perhaps best >>>> to explain the difference between EFI and CONFIG_EFI, without going into >>>> arch specifics. >>> Could you please tell me what you are reffering to as there is no such >>> identifier >>> in Xen (as opposed to Linux) like CONFIG_EFI ? >> >> Let's call it a "virtual" CONFIG_EFI then; I think we really should have >> such an option. But yes, if you don't like referring to such a virtual >> option, then describing what is meant verbally is certainly going to be >> fine. >> > FWICS, there was an attempt done by Wei in his NUMA series to define > CONFIG_EFI. > However as this is not yet merged and agreed, I would like not to refer to > identifiers > not existing in the code, even though most people are familiar with this > option from Linux. > > So by taking an example from Linux I would verbally explain it like that: > "To avoid any confusion, please note that EFI macro does not correspond to EFI > runtime support and is used when linking a native EFI (i.e. PE/COFF) binary, > hence its > usage in this header."
This reads okay to me (perhaps with "the" inserted before "EFI macro"). Jan
