Instead of having a pre-filled array xen_irq_ops for Xen PV paravirt
functions, drop the array and assign each element individually.
Signed-off-by: Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com>
---
V2:
- new patch
---
arch/x86/xen/irq.c | 20 +++++++-------------
tools/objtool/check.c | 1 -
2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/x86/xen/irq.c b/arch/x86/xen/irq.c
index 39982f955cfe..d8678c3d3971 100644
--- a/arch/x86/xen/irq.c
+++ b/arch/x86/xen/irq.c
@@ -40,20 +40,14 @@ static void xen_halt(void)
xen_safe_halt();
}
-static const typeof(pv_ops) xen_irq_ops __initconst = {
- .irq = {
- /* Initial interrupt flag handling only called while interrupts off. */
- .save_fl = __PV_IS_CALLEE_SAVE(paravirt_ret0),
- .irq_disable = __PV_IS_CALLEE_SAVE(paravirt_nop),
- .irq_enable = __PV_IS_CALLEE_SAVE(BUG_func),
-
- .safe_halt = xen_safe_halt,
- .halt = xen_halt,
- },
-};
-
void __init xen_init_irq_ops(void)
{
- pv_ops.irq = xen_irq_ops.irq;
+ /* Initial interrupt flag handling only called while interrupts off. */
+ pv_ops.irq.save_fl = __PV_IS_CALLEE_SAVE(paravirt_ret0);
+ pv_ops.irq.irq_disable = __PV_IS_CALLEE_SAVE(paravirt_nop);
+ pv_ops.irq.irq_enable = __PV_IS_CALLEE_SAVE(BUG_func);
+ pv_ops.irq.safe_halt = xen_safe_halt;
+ pv_ops.irq.halt = xen_halt;
+
x86_init.irqs.intr_init = xen_init_IRQ;
}
diff --git a/tools/objtool/check.c b/tools/objtool/check.c
index a72059fcbc83..d66eb37ff294 100644
--- a/tools/objtool/check.c
+++ b/tools/objtool/check.c
@@ -593,7 +593,6 @@ static int init_pv_ops(struct objtool_file *file)
static const char *pv_ops_tables[] = {
"pv_ops",
"xen_cpu_ops",
- "xen_irq_ops",
"xen_mmu_ops",
NULL,
};
--
2.51.0On Mon, Oct 06, 2025 at 09:46:00AM +0200, Juergen Gross wrote:
> Instead of having a pre-filled array xen_irq_ops for Xen PV paravirt
> functions, drop the array and assign each element individually.
Same comment for the next few patches; this changelog is a little light
on *why*. I mean, I don't mind the change, but supposedly we should
justify things at least a little, right? :-)
> Signed-off-by: Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com>
> ---
> V2:
> - new patch
> ---
> arch/x86/xen/irq.c | 20 +++++++-------------
> tools/objtool/check.c | 1 -
> 2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/xen/irq.c b/arch/x86/xen/irq.c
> index 39982f955cfe..d8678c3d3971 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/xen/irq.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/xen/irq.c
> @@ -40,20 +40,14 @@ static void xen_halt(void)
> xen_safe_halt();
> }
>
> -static const typeof(pv_ops) xen_irq_ops __initconst = {
> - .irq = {
> - /* Initial interrupt flag handling only called while interrupts off. */
> - .save_fl = __PV_IS_CALLEE_SAVE(paravirt_ret0),
> - .irq_disable = __PV_IS_CALLEE_SAVE(paravirt_nop),
> - .irq_enable = __PV_IS_CALLEE_SAVE(BUG_func),
> -
> - .safe_halt = xen_safe_halt,
> - .halt = xen_halt,
> - },
> -};
> -
> void __init xen_init_irq_ops(void)
> {
> - pv_ops.irq = xen_irq_ops.irq;
> + /* Initial interrupt flag handling only called while interrupts off. */
> + pv_ops.irq.save_fl = __PV_IS_CALLEE_SAVE(paravirt_ret0);
> + pv_ops.irq.irq_disable = __PV_IS_CALLEE_SAVE(paravirt_nop);
> + pv_ops.irq.irq_enable = __PV_IS_CALLEE_SAVE(BUG_func);
> + pv_ops.irq.safe_halt = xen_safe_halt;
> + pv_ops.irq.halt = xen_halt;
> +
> x86_init.irqs.intr_init = xen_init_IRQ;
> }
> diff --git a/tools/objtool/check.c b/tools/objtool/check.c
> index a72059fcbc83..d66eb37ff294 100644
> --- a/tools/objtool/check.c
> +++ b/tools/objtool/check.c
> @@ -593,7 +593,6 @@ static int init_pv_ops(struct objtool_file *file)
> static const char *pv_ops_tables[] = {
> "pv_ops",
> "xen_cpu_ops",
> - "xen_irq_ops",
> "xen_mmu_ops",
> NULL,
> };
> --
> 2.51.0
>
On 06.10.25 20:55, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Mon, Oct 06, 2025 at 09:46:00AM +0200, Juergen Gross wrote: >> Instead of having a pre-filled array xen_irq_ops for Xen PV paravirt >> functions, drop the array and assign each element individually. > > Same comment for the next few patches; this changelog is a little light > on *why*. I mean, I don't mind the change, but supposedly we should > justify things at least a little, right? :-) Would you be fine with the following addition: This is in preparation of reducing the paravirt include hell by splitting paravirt.h into multiple more fine grained header files, which will in turn require to split up the pv_ops vector as well. Dropping the pre-filled array makes life easier for objtool to detect missing initializers in multiple pv_ops_ arrays. Juergen
On Tue, Oct 07, 2025 at 09:47:48AM +0200, Jürgen Groß wrote: > On 06.10.25 20:55, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 06, 2025 at 09:46:00AM +0200, Juergen Gross wrote: > > > Instead of having a pre-filled array xen_irq_ops for Xen PV paravirt > > > functions, drop the array and assign each element individually. > > > > Same comment for the next few patches; this changelog is a little light > > on *why*. I mean, I don't mind the change, but supposedly we should > > justify things at least a little, right? :-) > > Would you be fine with the following addition: > > This is in preparation of reducing the paravirt include hell by > splitting paravirt.h into multiple more fine grained header files, > which will in turn require to split up the pv_ops vector as well. > Dropping the pre-filled array makes life easier for objtool to > detect missing initializers in multiple pv_ops_ arrays. Yes, that'll do. The latter being the main reason in this case, right?
On 07.10.25 12:21, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Tue, Oct 07, 2025 at 09:47:48AM +0200, Jürgen Groß wrote: >> On 06.10.25 20:55, Peter Zijlstra wrote: >>> On Mon, Oct 06, 2025 at 09:46:00AM +0200, Juergen Gross wrote: >>>> Instead of having a pre-filled array xen_irq_ops for Xen PV paravirt >>>> functions, drop the array and assign each element individually. >>> >>> Same comment for the next few patches; this changelog is a little light >>> on *why*. I mean, I don't mind the change, but supposedly we should >>> justify things at least a little, right? :-) >> >> Would you be fine with the following addition: >> >> This is in preparation of reducing the paravirt include hell by >> splitting paravirt.h into multiple more fine grained header files, >> which will in turn require to split up the pv_ops vector as well. >> Dropping the pre-filled array makes life easier for objtool to >> detect missing initializers in multiple pv_ops_ arrays. > > Yes, that'll do. The latter being the main reason in this case, right? Yes. Juergen
© 2016 - 2025 Red Hat, Inc.