[Xen-devel] Re: [patch 2/5] libelf: use for x86 dom0 builder.

[Emmanuel Ackaouy <ack@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Jan 24, 2007, at 9:41, Gerd Hoffmann wrote:

>   Hi,
>
> > > -obj-y += elf.o
> > > -obj-$(CONFIG_COMPAT) += elf32.o
> > > +#obj-y += elf.o
> > > +#obj-$(CONFIG_COMPAT) += elf32.o
> > Can we just zap those lines?
> Once ia64 is tested and ppc dom0 builder is ported over to libelf we 
> can.
Can you explain what ia64 or ppc have to do with lines that are 
commented
out?


> > > +    /* compatibility check */
> > > +    compatible = 0;
> > > +    compat32   = 0;
> > > +    machine = elf_uval(&elf, elf.ehdr, e_machine);
> > > +    switch (CONFIG_PAGING_LEVELS) {
> > Can we make this a compile time check instead of run-time?
> CONFIG_PAGING_LEVELS is a constant, thus it actually is compile-time,
> the gcc optimizer should throw away the unused code paths.  I prefer
> this way over cluttering the source with #ifdefs.
I'm not sure I follow. Are you suggesting we replace ifdefs with run
time checks because the compiler will deal with it?

> > Also, it
> > would seem easier to do all the checks first and then do a printk
> > specifying which kernel we found and, if it's not compatible with the
> > hypervisor, why not.
> I intentionally print kernel and xen type unconditionally.  I think it
> is useful to have that information in the log, even if the combination
> is not incompatible.
I didn't suggest printing nothing when the combination is compatible.


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel