On 16.03.2023 12:00, Roger Pau Monné wrote: > On Thu, Mar 16, 2023 at 11:45:47AM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote: >> On 16.03.2023 11:32, Roger Pau Monne wrote: >>> --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/xen/hypervisor.h >>> +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/xen/hypervisor.h >>> @@ -63,4 +63,14 @@ void __init xen_pvh_init(struct boot_params *boot_params); >>> void __init mem_map_via_hcall(struct boot_params *boot_params_p); >>> #endif >>> >>> +#ifdef CONFIG_XEN_DOM0 >> >> Shouldn't you also check CONFIG_X86 here, seeing the condition for when >> pcpu.c would be built? > > It's in a x86 specific header, so that's enough I think? (note the > path of the header) Oh, of course I should have paid attention - I'm sorry. (Then again it's not really logical to live in an arch-dependent header, as the same would be needed elsewhere with ACPI.) >> Additionally CONFIG_ACPI may want checking, which >> - taken together - would amount to checking CONFIG_XEN_ACPI. (For which >> in turn I find odd that it will also be engaged when !DOM0.) > > Hm, is it worth making the acpi_id field in struct pcpu or helper > conditional to CONFIG_ACPI? It's just data fetched from Xen so it > doesn't depend on any of the ACPI functionality in Linux. > > IMO I don't think it's worth the extra ifdefs. I didn't mean to suggest #ifdef for the new struct field. But the helper is of no use without ACPI. Jan
