[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [PATCH v2 5/6] libxencall: drop bogus mentioning of xencall6()
- To: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>, Ian Jackson <iwj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- From: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2021 08:18:39 +0200
- Arc-authentication-results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=suse.com; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=suse.com; dkim=pass header.d=suse.com; arc=none
- Arc-message-signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=ytVM0OQTV9HSm4wl625AUkrcGQRWP/PTGgMxmvw8Jyc=; b=jUzOv1C4BGTBJuE1/R57+u1kH5AfG3+PUz5qo4ljJFyr8K5P+mJDJJhNUSujLewfjFyhulBJuTTc09hjAtdZL0syJTPQ0jT0i39rQx6jvlGiPSjGm97MLWNVqGmLtA+S/xWtMozaaQwrQxU1DCPeD9JHCfFSxCdrYt45cUXvD890le0OAECVhGXukdKyzR9nyUFoKT/pxQ1ns+Yl0h+6ibN+KurYXV3gGpBRYheRQ1BShosqQvyj99NaXIevdupqJTlymZdI41f+u+4b87yzCWlLa3JdUV0RwHgp6v5LqYVcEGiMpDfw32oGolvDE/9/f9MltAWAWfv8rXY1lg/EKg==
- Arc-seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=U9ywDJ6ITUngm/Y4tFfN9HSzO3Ke6LQ1/tMSHc41OjhR/Z0BdZJPvLgW6LpLz3WmuQA7vtiym5CKAH5oAPa3gXQzHkqprPT7U4eTy4ixA8QeC9clBsiPYLkaPtI5D0fGjXOhrXc1vrfcZEun5eHJPh4BPgropJ6eujvM5PRBYHu9MzFD6Rallcg3hv5YPCDTJGK5M9QPqpj7OgOm2hh/eFH5izbgJIfI0UgSVFMq0qA6gYXm+shK5Oz4vZV+xUxcwi5QESJiRPWK8GCQ1MICFbvTUJL8bqPmIR8R2WsmN7Fg2Cdl+GU3rbPfowvMEsb7eLMyWtZTO+J0zmtRzb3xmg==
- Authentication-results: lists.xenproject.org; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;lists.xenproject.org; dmarc=none action=none header.from=suse.com;
- Cc: Wei Liu <wl@xxxxxxx>, Roger Pau Monné <roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx>, Juergen Gross <jgross@xxxxxxxx>, "xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Delivery-date: Wed, 23 Jun 2021 06:18:55 +0000
- List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xenproject.org>
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 <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>
>> Acked-by: Ian Jackson <iwj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Reviewed-by: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>
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
|
