[lkml]   [2019]   [Sep]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] ARM: xen: unexport HYPERVISOR_platform_op function
Hi Andrew,

On 9/6/19 6:20 PM, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 06/09/2019 17:00, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 5:55 PM Andrew Cooper <> wrote:
>>> On 06/09/2019 16:39, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>>>> HYPERVISOR_platform_op() is an inline function and should not
>>>> be exported. Since commit 15bfc2348d54 ("modpost: check for
>>>> static EXPORT_SYMBOL* functions"), this causes a warning:
>>>> WARNING: "HYPERVISOR_platform_op" [vmlinux] is a static EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL
>>>> Remove the extraneous export.
>>>> Fixes: 15bfc2348d54 ("modpost: check for static EXPORT_SYMBOL* functions")
>>>> Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <>
>>> Something is wonky. That symbol is (/ really ought to be) in the
>>> hypercall page and most definitely not inline.
>>> Which tree is that changeset from? I can't find the SHA.
>> This is from linux-next, I think from the kbuild tree.
> Thanks.
> Julien/Stefano: Why are any of these hypercalls out-of-line?  ARM
> doesn't use the hypercall page, and there is no argument translation
> (not even in arm32 as there are no 5-argument hypercalls declared).

I am not sure how the hypercall page makes things different. You still
have to store the arguments in the correct register so...

> They'd surely be easier to implement with a few static inlines and some
> common code, than to try and replicate the x86 side hypercall_page
> interface ?

... I don't think they will be easier to implement with a few static
inlines. The implementation will likely end up to be similar to

Furthermore, one of the downside of per-arch static inline is it is more
difficult to ensure the prototype match for all the architectures.
Although, it might be possible to make them common by only requesting
per-arch to implement HYPERCALL_N(...).

So I think the code is better as it is.

While looking at the code, I also realized that the implementation of
HYPERCALL_dm_op might be incorrect for Arm32. Similarly do privcmd call,
I think dm_op call should enable user access as they will be used by

We don't use dm_op on Arm so far, hence why I think this was unnoticed.
I will see if I can reproduce it and send a patch.


Julien Grall

 \ /
  Last update: 2019-09-07 12:06    [W:0.054 / U:4.008 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site