On 17.04.2023 14:13, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> --- a/xen/common/livepatch.c
> +++ b/xen/common/livepatch.c
> @@ -803,28 +803,84 @@ static int prepare_payload(struct payload *payload,
> if ( sec )
> {
> #ifdef CONFIG_HAS_ALTERNATIVE
> + /*
> + * (As of April 2023), Alternatives are formed of:
> + * - An .altinstructions section with an array of struct alt_instr's.
> + * - An .altinstr_replacement section containing instructions.
> + *
> + * An individual alt_instr contains:
> + * - An orig reference, pointing into .text with a nonzero length
> + * - A repl reference, pointing into .altinstr_replacement
> + *
> + * It is legal to have zero-length replacements, meaning it is legal
> + * for the .altinstr_replacement section to be empty too. An
> + * implementation detail means that a zero-length replacement's repl
> + * reference will still be in the .altinstr_replacement section.
Didn't you agree that "will" is not really true, and it's at best "may", but
then also doesn't really matter here in the first place (suggesting that the
sentence might best be dropped, to avoid drawing attention to something that
might at best confuse the reader as to its relevance)?
Jan
