Hi Jan,
On 27/03/2025 15:08, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 27.03.2025 15:49, Julien Grall wrote:
On 13/03/2025 13:38, Jan Beulich wrote:
There's no need for each arch to invoke it directly, and there's no need
for having a stub either. With the present placement of the calls to
init_constructors() it can easily be a constructor itself.
Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com>
Acked-by: Julien Grall <jgr...@amazon.com>
Thanks.
---
Same could then apparently be done for heap_init_late(). Thoughts?
Looking at the code, I couldn't figure out whether any of the
constructors may rely on some changes done by heap_init_late().
The only issue I can think of is scrubbing. In the case it is
synchronous, would the memory allocated before hand be scrubbed?
Memory that is allocated can't possibly be scrubbed; only memory that's
still un-allocated can be. With that I fear I don't properly understand
the question you raise.
I meant that if memory is allocated by calls from init_constructors().
Before this patch, the memory would be scrubbed. After this patch,
anything constructors called before heap_init_late() would end up to not
be scrubbed if it is synchronous.
Cheers,
--
Julien Grall
