Re: [PATCH v3] acpi/processor: fix evaluating _PDC method when running as Xen dom0

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]


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.


[Index of Archives]     [Linux IBM ACPI]     [Linux Power Management]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux Laptop]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Share Photos]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Samba]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Device Mapper]     [Linux Resources]
  Powered by Linux