On 14.05.2024 13:51, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> On Tue, May 14, 2024 at 12:26:29PM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 14.05.2024 12:22, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
>>> On Tue, May 14, 2024 at 11:43:14AM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 14.05.2024 11:40, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, May 13, 2024 at 01:40:34PM +0000, Elias El Yandouzi wrote:
>>>>>> @@ -53,6 +55,8 @@ enum fixed_addresses {
>>>>>> FIX_PV_CONSOLE,
>>>>>> FIX_XEN_SHARED_INFO,
>>>>>> #endif /* CONFIG_XEN_GUEST */
>>>>>> + FIX_PMAP_BEGIN,
>>>>>> + FIX_PMAP_END = FIX_PMAP_BEGIN + NUM_FIX_PMAP,
>>>>>
>>>>> This would better have
>>>>>
>>>>> #ifdef CONFIG_HAS_PMAP
>>>>>
>>>>> guards?
>>>>
>>>> That's useful only when the option can actually be off in certain
>>>> configurations, isn't it?
>>>
>>> My comment earlier on this patch suggested to make CONFIG_HAS_PMAP be
>>> selected by HAS_SECRET_HIDING, rather than being unconditionally
>>> arch-selected (if that's possible, I certainly don't know the usage in
>>> further patches).
>>
>> Right, but in patch 6 HAS_SECRET_HIDING is selected unconditionally,
>> which would then also select HAS_PMAP. If, otoh, HAS_PMAP was selected
>> only when SECRET_HIDING (or whatever its name is going to be), then an
>> #ifdef would indeed be wanted here.
>
> Oh, indeed, I was meant to tie to SECRET_HIDING and not
> HAS_SECRET_HIDING. I have to admit (as I've already commented on the
> patch) I don't much like those names, they are far too generic.
And I commented to this same effect on v2 already, without being heard.
Jan
