On 24.04.2023 17:43, Luca Fancellu wrote: >> On 24 Apr 2023, at 16:41, Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com> wrote: >> On 24.04.2023 17:34, Luca Fancellu wrote: >>>> On 24 Apr 2023, at 16:25, Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com> wrote: >>>> On 24.04.2023 17:18, Luca Fancellu wrote: >>>>> Oh ok, I don’t know, here what I get if for example I build arm32: >>>>> >>>>> arm-linux-gnueabihf-ld -EL -T arch/arm/xen.lds -N prelink.o \ >>>>> ./common/symbols-dummy.o -o ./.xen-syms.0 >>>>> arm-linux-gnueabihf-ld: prelink.o: in function `create_domUs': >>>>> (.init.text+0x13464): undefined reference to `sve_domctl_vl_param' >>>> >>>> In particular with seeing this: What you copied here is a build with the >>>> series applied only up to this patch? I ask because the patch here adds a >>>> call only out of create_dom0(). >>> >>> No I’ve do the changes on top of the serie, I’ve tried it now, only to this >>> patch and it builds correctly, >>> It was my mistake to don’t read carefully the error output. >>> >>> Anyway I guess this change is not applicable because we don’t have a symbol >>> that is plain 0 for domUs >>> to be placed inside create_domUs. >> >> Possible, but would you mind first telling me in which other patch(es) the >> further reference(s) are being introduced, so I could take a look without >> (again) digging through the entire series? > > Sure, the other references to the function are introduced in "xen/arm: add > sve property for dom0less domUs” patch 11
Personally I'm inclined to suggest adding "#ifdef CONFIG_ARM64_SVE" there. But I guess that may again go against your desire to not ignore inapplicable options. Still I can't resist to at least ask how an "sve" node on Arm32 is different from an entirely unknown one. Jan
