On 22.06.2021 20:25, Andrew Cooper wrote: > On 22/06/2021 16:19, Jan Beulich wrote: >> There's no xencall6(), so the version script also shouldn't mention it. >> If such a function would ever appear, it shouldn't land in version 1.0. >> >> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com> >> Acked-by: Ian Jackson <i...@xenproject.org> > > Reviewed-by: Andrew Cooper <andrew.coop...@citrix.com>
Thanks. > This really does need backporting, So far I've been unconvinced it really would need to, unless we expect that a further backport might introduce such a call without us noticing. Since on the main branch such a change would then need to add xencall6 in a new version, the question is what the linker's behavior is when the same symbol would appear in two distinct version sections of the script. In any event, this being a tool stack change, the final word on whether to backport this one is going to be with Ian. My backporting request here only covers the first 4 patches of the series (and I'm likely to take the liberty and include them in my own backport sets, so Ian, if you want this one backported too, you may want to indicate to me that I should include the one here right away, should you agree with Andrew). > and it is probably worth stating > explicitly that there is no change in the resulting object, nor > abi-dumper's view of the object. I've added a sentence along these lines. Jan
