On 28.11.2023 12:49, Oleksii wrote: > On Tue, 2023-11-28 at 10:58 +0100, Jan Beulich wrote: >> On 28.11.2023 10:28, Oleksii wrote: >>> On Tue, 2023-11-28 at 08:57 +0100, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>> On 27.11.2023 20:38, Oleksii wrote: >>>>> On Mon, 2023-11-27 at 15:41 +0100, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>>>> On 27.11.2023 15:13, Oleksii Kurochko wrote: >>>>>>> --- a/xen/arch/ppc/include/asm/grant_table.h >>>>>>> +++ /dev/null >>>>>>> @@ -1,5 +0,0 @@ >>>>>>> -/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only */ >>>>>>> -#ifndef __ASM_PPC_GRANT_TABLE_H__ >>>>>>> -#define __ASM_PPC_GRANT_TABLE_H__ >>>>>>> - >>>>>>> -#endif /* __ASM_PPC_GRANT_TABLE_H__ */ >>>>>> >>>>>> Removing this header would be correct only if GRANT_TABLE had >>>>>> a >>>>>> "depends on >>>>>> !PPC", I'm afraid. Recall that the earlier randconfig >>>>>> adjustment >>>>>> in >>>>>> CI was >>>>>> actually requested to be undone, at which point what an >>>>>> arch's >>>>>> defconfig >>>>>> says isn't necessarily what a randconfig should use. >>>>> We can do depends on !PPC && !RISCV but shouldn't it be enough >>>>> only >>>>> to >>>>> turn CONFIG_GRANT_TABLE off in defconfig and set >>>>> CONFIG_GRANT_TABLE=n >>>>> in EXTRA_XEN_CONFIG? >>>> >>>> That _might_ be sufficient for CI, but we shouldn't take CI as >>>> the >>>> only >>>> thing in the world. Personally I consider any kind of overriding >>>> for, >>>> in particular, randconfig at bets bogus. Whatever may not be >>>> selected >>>> (or must be selected) should be arranged for by Kconfig files >>>> themselves. >>>> That said, there may be _rare_ exceptions. But what PPC's and >>>> RISC- >>>> V's >>>> defconfig-s have right now is more than "rare" imo. >>>> >>>>> Some time ago I also tried to redefine "Config GRANT_TABLE" in >>>>> arch- >>>>> specific Kconfig + defconfig + EXTRA_XEN_CONFIG and it works >>>>> for >>>>> me. >>>>> Could it be solution instead of "depends on..." ? >>>> >>>> Why would we want to re-define an setting? There wants to be one >>>> single >>>> place where a common option is defined. Or maybe I don't >>>> understand >>>> what you're suggesting ... >>> I just thought this change is temporary because grant_table.h will >>> be >>> introduced later or earlier, and it will be needed to remove >>> "depends >>> on !PPC && !RISCV". And not to litter common KConfig with the >>> change >>> which will be removed, it will be better to redefine it in arch- >>> specific Kconfig with default n. >> >> Right. But if it's indeed temporary, what's the point of this patch? >> The entire series is (supposed to be) to improve code structure for >> longer term purposes. If a non-generic grant_table.h is going to >> appear for PPC and RISC-V, I don't see why the present dummy would >> need removing. That's only useful if an arch can be expected to live >> with GRANT_TABLE=n even when otherwise feature-complete, and at that >> point modifying the Kconfig dependencies would (imo) be appropriate. > I agree. Let's proceed by adding the dependency in the KConfig file. > > So which one option will be better: > 1. depends on !PPC && !RISCV > 2. depends on ARM || X86
Agreeing and then making this suggestion contradicts one another. Unless the long-term plan is for PPC and RISC-V to not use grant tables. Jan
