Re: [XEN][PATCH 2/2] xen/arm: irq: drop unreachable pirq callbacks

[Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

On 23.07.2025 12:37, Grygorii Strashko wrote:
> On 18.07.25 17:18, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 18.07.2025 13:47, Grygorii Strashko wrote:
>>> On 18.07.25 13:22, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 18.07.2025 12:11, Grygorii Strashko wrote:
>>>>> From: Grygorii Strashko <grygorii_strashko@xxxxxxxx>
>>>>>
>>>>> Hence all common PIRQ code is under CONFIG_HAS_PIRQ idefs corresponding 
>>>>> Arm
>>>>> arch callbacks become unreachable, so drop them.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Grygorii Strashko <grygorii_strashko@xxxxxxxx>
>>>>> ---
>>>>>    xen/arch/arm/irq.c | 29 -----------------------------
>>>>>    1 file changed, 29 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> Can this really be a separate change? That is, aren't we going to have 
>>>> transient
>>>> Misra violations (for Arm only) between the two changes?
>>>
>>> The violation exist even before this series, and applies to arm/ppc/riscv 
>>> actually
>>>
>>> alloc_pirq_struct - unreachable
>>> pirq_guest_bind - unreachable
>>> pirq_guest_unbind - unreachable
>>> pirq_set_affinity - "reachable" at least from compiler point of view.
>>>
>>> Would you like to have cumulative, cross-arch change to drop above arch 
>>> callbacks and
>>> squash it in previous patch?
>>
>> If the issue is pre-existing, then it doesn't need squashing and the order
>> isn't important. But it would indeed be desirable to have the cleanup done
>> across the board.
> 
> I can create clean-up patches for all affected arches.
> 
> What's you opinion on how to proceed:
> - re-send this series with additional patches
> - wait for patch 1 and then send arch specific clean-up series
> ?

Largely up to you, I would say. I was actually about to commit patch 1, when
I noticed that it's still lacking a scheduler maintainer ack.

Jan