Re: [PATCH 10/19] x86: Replace boot_module with bootmodule

[Alejandro Vallejo <agarciav@xxxxxxx>]

On Thu Jun 5, 2025 at 7:28 PM CEST, Alejandro Vallejo wrote:
> On Mon Jun 2, 2025 at 7:00 PM CEST, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>> On 30/05/2025 1:02 pm, Alejandro Vallejo wrote:
>>> These types resemble each other very closely in layout and intent, and
>>> with "struct bootmodule" already in common code it makes perfect sense
>>> to merge them. In order to do so, add an arch-specific area for
>>> x86-specific tidbits.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Alejandro Vallejo <agarciav@xxxxxxx>
>>
>> Yet this is a distinct backwards step in terms of legibility.
>>
>> How about modifying the common code to be more legible, rather than
>> regressing the x86 code.
>>
>> ~Andrew
>
> I meant to ifdef out the fields unused on x86, but after some massaging I
> think I got it lookin much nicer. It's essentially using the common parts of
> kernel_info and boot_domain as a header to kernel_info.
>
> That way, x86 keeps using a substantially smaller (yet common) data structure
> while the rest of dom0less can keep using the original as-is.
>
> Refactoring kernel_info to rationalise its contents is somewhere in my TODO
> list, but I have much more urgent fish to fry first.
>
> Cheers,
> Alejandro

... I misread the comment and thought it was in the following patch rather than 
this one.

If it was indeed intended here, I'm at a loss as to what you'd rather do.
Common bindings need a common ground. This is such ground. The data structures
are virtually identical and used for identical purposes.

What's the legibility step you're talking about?

If not in this form, then in another, but I do need some data structure
understandable on every architecture for this very use or hooking dom0less
binding support from common in a non-hacky way becomes impossible.

Cheers,
Alejandro