Re: [PATCH v4 06/44] x86/boot: convert consider_modules to struct boot_module

[Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On 04/09/2024 7:40 am, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 30.08.2024 23:46, Daniel P. Smith wrote:
>> @@ -1447,7 +1447,7 @@ void asmlinkage __init noreturn __start_xen(unsigned 
>> long mbi_p)
>>          {
>>              /* Don't overlap with modules. */
>>              end = consider_modules(s, e, reloc_size + mask,
>> -                                   mod, boot_info->nr_mods, -1);
>> +                                   boot_info->mods, boot_info->nr_mods, -1);
>>              end &= ~mask;
>>          }
>>          else
>> @@ -1482,7 +1482,7 @@ void asmlinkage __init noreturn __start_xen(unsigned 
>> long mbi_p)
>>                  continue;
>>  
>>              /* Don't overlap with other modules (or Xen itself). */
>> -            end = consider_modules(s, e, size, mod,
>> +            end = consider_modules(s, e, size, boot_info->mods,
>>                                     boot_info->nr_mods + relocated, j);
>>  
>>              if ( highmem_start && end > highmem_start )
>> @@ -1509,7 +1509,7 @@ void asmlinkage __init noreturn __start_xen(unsigned 
>> long mbi_p)
>>          while ( !kexec_crash_area.start )
>>          {
>>              /* Don't overlap with modules (or Xen itself). */
>> -            e = consider_modules(s, e, PAGE_ALIGN(kexec_crash_area.size), 
>> mod,
>> +            e = consider_modules(s, e, PAGE_ALIGN(kexec_crash_area.size), 
>> boot_info->mods,
>>                                   boot_info->nr_mods + relocated, -1);
> All of these show a meaningful increase of line lengths, up to the point of
> ending up with too long a line here. I really wonder if the variable name
> "boot_info" isn't too long for something that's going to be used quite
> frequently. Just "bi" maybe?

Actually I noticed that too.

It's boot_info-> in setup.c, and bi-> everywhere else (with bm later too).

We should just use "bi" uniformly even in setup.c  (Or some other name,
but I'm happy with bi here - it's very easily qualified by it's field
names.)

~Andrew