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

["Daniel P. Smith" <dpsmith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 4/9/25 06:28, Alejandro Vallejo wrote:
> 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".
Jan is correct, now that we have moved into 2025, they should be 
updated. Maybe we can actually get it all committed this year.
v/r,
dps