Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] x86/cpu-policy: move CPU policy library code

["Roger Pau Monné" <roger.pau@citrix.com>]

On Tue, Feb 24, 2026 at 07:54:29AM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 23.02.2026 20:00, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> > On 02/02/2026 4:26 pm, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >> On 02.02.2026 16:47, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> >>> On 07/01/2026 2:17 pm, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>>> diff --git a/xen/arch/x86/arch.mk b/xen/arch/x86/arch.mk
> >>>> index 0203138a819a..be6c76d2934b 100644
> >>>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/arch.mk
> >>>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/arch.mk
> >>>> @@ -4,6 +4,7 @@
> >>>>  export XEN_IMG_OFFSET := 0x200000
> >>>>  
> >>>>  ARCH_LIBS-y += arch/x86/lib/lib.a
> >>>> +ALL_LIBS-y += arch/x86/lib/cpu-policy/lib.a
> >>> This wants to extend ARCH_LIBS-y surely?  Is this a rebasing oversight?
> >> No, this was deliberate. The functions here are different from those in
> >> arch/x86/lib/lib.a. We don't need to fear collision with "common code"
> >> ones. Hence I preferred to use the more "normal" placement into what's
> >> passed to the linker.
> > 
> > I agree that we don't have the explicit ordering requirement that we
> > have with arch/x86/lib/lib.a.
> > 
> > But, it still reads as bogus to be putting arch/x86/lib/cpu-policy/lib.a
> > in the non-ARCH list.
> > 
> > What difference is there having this a little earlier in the linker
> > arguments?  Nothing AFAICT.
> 
> Indeed. The sole reason why I'd prefer things as presented is that putting
> stuff in ARCH_LIBS should imo be the special case (i.e. requiring a special
> reason), while putting things in ALL_LIBS should be the default.

I agree with Andrew that it feels weird that arch/x86/lib/lib.a is
placed in ARCH_LIBS-y and arch/x86/lib/cpu-policy/lib.a is placed in
ALL_LIBS-y.  If we want to do it that way it needs a comment
explaining why they are placed in different list, otherwise it seems
like a typo on first sight, and it's likely to confuse people in the
future.

Thanks, Roger.