On Thu, Nov 13, 2025 at 02:24:38PM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 13.11.2025 13:59, Marek Marczykowski wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 13, 2025 at 01:46:20PM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >> On 13.11.2025 13:40, Marek Marczykowski wrote:
> >>> On Thu, Nov 13, 2025 at 12:09:37PM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/include/asm/brk.h
> >>>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/include/asm/brk.h
> >>>> @@ -2,6 +2,10 @@
> >>>>  
> >>>>  #include <xen/types.h>
> >>>>  
> >>>> +#define DEFINE_BRK(var, size) \
> >>>> +    static char __section(".bss..brk.page_aligned") __aligned(PAGE_SIZE) \
> >>>> +        __used var ## _brk_[size]
> >>>
> >>> This chunk belongs to the previous patch I think.
> >>
> >> It could, but it's not used there yet (i.e. would count as dead code).
> > 
> > But in the current shape the linker script change in the first patch is
> > unused. IOW, I think adding .bss..brk.page_aligned to the linker script
> > should go together with DEFINE_BRK.
> 
> Again - could be done that way, but there's no concept of "dead code" in
> the linker script (afaik at least).

Anyway, I voiced my opinion, but it isn't important enough to block the
patch on it. Either way:

Reviewed-by: Marek Marczykowski-Górecki <marmarek@invisiblethingslab.com>

-- 
Best Regards,
Marek Marczykowski-Górecki
Invisible Things Lab