| Message ID | 1471646606-28519-3-git-send-email-daniel.kiper@oracle.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
>>> On 20.08.16 at 00:43, <daniel.kiper@oracle.com> wrote: > Its visibility is not needed and just pollute symbol table. > > Suggested-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com> > Signed-off-by: Daniel Kiper <daniel.kiper@oracle.com> With Andrew effectively having NAK-ed v4 of this patch, I don't see why - without further argumentation - this has been included again. Jan
On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 05:21:24AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote: > >>> On 20.08.16 at 00:43, <daniel.kiper@oracle.com> wrote: > > Its visibility is not needed and just pollute symbol table. > > > > Suggested-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com> > > Signed-off-by: Daniel Kiper <daniel.kiper@oracle.com> > > With Andrew effectively having NAK-ed v4 of this patch, I don't see > why - without further argumentation - this has been included again. I have saw that discussion stopped somewhere in the middle, so, I was not sure what is your final decision. However, if you approve/agree Andrew's NAK then I think that we should use "multiboot2_header_end" label instead of .Lmultiboot2_header_end in patch #9 (x86: add multiboot2 protocol support). Just to be in line with multiboot (v1) protocol header. Daniel
>>> On 30.08.16 at 16:27, <daniel.kiper@oracle.com> wrote: > On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 05:21:24AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote: >> >>> On 20.08.16 at 00:43, <daniel.kiper@oracle.com> wrote: >> > Its visibility is not needed and just pollute symbol table. >> > >> > Suggested-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com> >> > Signed-off-by: Daniel Kiper <daniel.kiper@oracle.com> >> >> With Andrew effectively having NAK-ed v4 of this patch, I don't see >> why - without further argumentation - this has been included again. > > I have saw that discussion stopped somewhere in the middle, so, I was > not sure what is your final decision. However, if you approve/agree > Andrew's NAK then I think that we should use "multiboot2_header_end" > label instead of .Lmultiboot2_header_end in patch #9 (x86: add multiboot2 > protocol support). Just to be in line with multiboot (v1) protocol header. I don't agree with Andrew, but I also won't approve and commit a patch he did nak. Since I'm of the opinion that I should not have given my ack to his original change, I'm going to nak introduction of another such bogus label. Jan
diff --git a/xen/arch/x86/boot/head.S b/xen/arch/x86/boot/head.S index 85770e8..e34351c 100644 --- a/xen/arch/x86/boot/head.S +++ b/xen/arch/x86/boot/head.S @@ -32,7 +32,7 @@ multiboot1_header_start: /*** MULTIBOOT1 HEADER ****/ .long MULTIBOOT_HEADER_FLAGS /* Checksum: must be the negated sum of the first two fields. */ .long -(MULTIBOOT_HEADER_MAGIC + MULTIBOOT_HEADER_FLAGS) -multiboot1_header_end: +.Lmultiboot1_header_end: .section .init.rodata, "a", @progbits .align 4
Its visibility is not needed and just pollute symbol table. Suggested-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com> Signed-off-by: Daniel Kiper <daniel.kiper@oracle.com> --- xen/arch/x86/boot/head.S | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)