Re: [PATCH v5 36/44] x86/boot: remove remaining early_mod references

[Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

On 10.10.2024 01:42, Daniel P. Smith wrote:
> On 10/9/24 02:53, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 08.10.2024 21:15, Jason Andryuk wrote:
>>> On 2024-10-06 17:49, Daniel P. Smith wrote:
>>>> Any direct usages of struct mod have been transitioned, remove the 
>>>> remaining
>>>> references to early_mod fields.
>>>
>>> This is unclear, please try to re-word.  "struct mod" and "early_mod"
>>> don't exist.
>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Daniel P. Smith <dpsmith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>> ---
>>>>    xen/arch/x86/setup.c | 31 +++++++++++--------------------
>>>>    1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/xen/arch/x86/setup.c b/xen/arch/x86/setup.c
>>>> index e9e3da3204f1..0ffe8d3ff8dd 100644
>>>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/setup.c
>>>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/setup.c
>>>
>>>> @@ -1404,16 +1401,12 @@ void asmlinkage __init noreturn 
>>>> __start_xen(unsigned long mbi_p)
>>>>             */
>>>>            bi->mods[xen].start = virt_to_mfn(_stext);
>>>>            bi->mods[xen].size = __2M_rwdata_end - _stext;
>>>> -
>>>> -        bi->mods[xen].mod->mod_start = bi->mods[xen].start;
>>>> -        bi->mods[xen].mod->mod_end = bi->mods[xen].size;
>>>>        }
>>>>    
>>>> -    bi->mods[0].headroom =
>>>> -        bzimage_headroom(bootstrap_map(bi->mods[0].mod),
>>>> -                         bi->mods[0].mod->mod_end);
>>>> -
>>>> -    bootstrap_map(NULL);
>>>> +    bi->mods[0].headroom = bzimage_headroom(
>>>> +                        bootstrap_map_bm(&bi->mods[0]),
>>>> +                        bi->mods[0].size);
>>>
>>> Thunderbird might corrupt this, bit the above can fit on two lines:
>>>       bi->mods[0].headroom = 
>>> bzimage_headroom(bootstrap_map_bm(&bi->mods[0]),
>>>                                               bi->mods[0].size);
>>
>> Or else at least indentation wants to change, to one of the two possible
>> forms:
>>
>>      bi->mods[0].headroom = bzimage_headroom(
>>          bootstrap_map_bm(&bi->mods[0]),
>>          bi->mods[0].size);
>>
>> (indentation increased by a level from the start of the statement) or
>>
>>      bi->mods[0].headroom = bzimage_headroom(
>>                                 bootstrap_map_bm(&bi->mods[0]),
>>                                 bi->mods[0].size);
>>
>> (indentation by one level biased from the start of the function call).
>> Personally, if already wrapping like this, I'd prefer the former.
> 
> I agree with you, the former is more pleasing, though wouldn't line 3 
> fit on line 2?

Yes, looks like it would.

Jan