On 05/11/2019 10.26, Cornelia Huck wrote:
On Mon, 4 Nov 2019 18:50:12 +0100
Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 04.11.19 16:54, Cornelia Huck wrote:
On Thu, 24 Oct 2019 07:40:24 -0400
Janosch Frank <frankja@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
diff --git a/arch/s390/boot/uv.c b/arch/s390/boot/uv.c
index ed007f4a6444..88cf8825d169 100644
--- a/arch/s390/boot/uv.c
+++ b/arch/s390/boot/uv.c
@@ -3,7 +3,12 @@
#include <asm/facility.h>
#include <asm/sections.h>
+#ifdef CONFIG_PROTECTED_VIRTUALIZATION_GUEST
int __bootdata_preserved(prot_virt_guest);
+#endif
+#ifdef CONFIG_KVM_S390_PROTECTED_VIRTUALIZATION_HOST
+struct uv_info __bootdata_preserved(uv_info);
+#endif
Two functions with the same name, but different signatures look really
ugly.
Also, what happens if I want to build just a single kernel image for
both guest and host?
This is not two functions with the same name. It is 2 variable declarations with
the __bootdata_preserved helper. We expect to have all distro kernels to enable
both.
Ah ok, I misread that. (I'm blaming lack of sleep :/)
Honestly, I have to admit that I mis-read this in the same way as
Cornelia at the first glance. Why is that macro not using capital
letters? ... then it would be way more obvious that it's not about a
function prototype...
Thomas
