Re: [PATCH v3 01/16] x86/boot: introduce boot domain

[Alejandro Vallejo <agarciav@xxxxxxx>]

On Wed Apr 9, 2025 at 7:24 AM BST, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 08.04.2025 18:07, Alejandro Vallejo wrote:
>> From: "Daniel P. Smith" <dpsmith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> 
>> To begin moving toward allowing the hypervisor to construct more than one
>> domain at boot, a container is needed for a domain's build information.
>> Introduce a new header, <xen/asm/bootdomain.h>, that contains the initial
>> struct boot_domain that encapsulate the build information for a domain.
>> 
>> Add a kernel and ramdisk boot module reference along with a struct domain
>> reference to the new struct boot_domain. This allows a struct boot_domain
>> reference to be the only parameter necessary to pass down through the domain
>> construction call chain.
>> 
>> Signed-off-by: Daniel P. Smith <dpsmith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Reviewed-by: Jason Andryuk <jason.andryuk@xxxxxxx>
>
> Acked-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>

Thanks

>
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/include/asm/boot-domain.h
>> @@ -0,0 +1,28 @@
>> +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-or-later */
>> +/*
>> + * Copyright (c) 2024 Apertus Solutions, LLC
>> + * Author: Daniel P. Smith <dpsmith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> + * Copyright (c) 2024 Christopher Clark <christopher.w.clark@xxxxxxxxx>
>> + */
>
> I wonder if the 2024-s here shouldn't have been amended by 2025 now.

Maybe. I didn't think about it, tbh. One could argue that Daniel and
Christopher's original contribution was indeed in 2024 and the fact they
weren't committed until (hopefully!) 2025 doesn't remove the fact they
did exist in some form in 2024.

I don't particularly care either way, but tend to lean on the "it's fine
how it is".

Cheers,
Alejandro