Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v3.1 10/15] xen/x86: split Dom0 build into PV and PVHv2

["Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

>>> On 28.11.16 at 18:49, <roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 03:49:22AM -0700, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> >>> On 16.11.16 at 19:02, <roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 09:53:49AM -0700, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> >> >>> On 29.10.16 at 10:59, <roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >> > --- a/xen/arch/x86/setup.c
>> >> > +++ b/xen/arch/x86/setup.c
>> >> > @@ -67,6 +67,16 @@ unsigned long __read_mostly cr4_pv32_mask;
>> >> >  static bool_t __initdata opt_dom0pvh;
>> >> >  boolean_param("dom0pvh", opt_dom0pvh);
>> >> >  
>> >> > +/*
>> >> > + * List of parameters that affect Dom0 creation:
>> >> > + *
>> >> > + *  - hvm               Create a PVHv2 Dom0.
>> >> > + *  - shadow            Use shadow paging for Dom0.
>> >> > + */
>> >> > +static void parse_dom0_param(char *s);
>> >> 
>> >> Please try to avoid such forward declarations.
> 
> OK, so would you prefer to place the custom_param call after the function 
> definition? I've done it that way (with the forward declaration) because it's 
> the way other options are already implemented.

I don't know where you've looked, but out of the 8 or so examples
I've looked at just now only one used a forward declaration, and
we've been asking others introducing new custom options the same
I'm asking you now. IOW - yes, the function should come first,
immediately followed by the custom_param().

Jan


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel