[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [PATCH 10/19] x86: Replace boot_module with bootmodule
- To: Alejandro Vallejo <agarciav@xxxxxxx>
- From: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2025 08:56:16 +0200
- Autocrypt: addr=jbeulich@xxxxxxxx; keydata= xsDiBFk3nEQRBADAEaSw6zC/EJkiwGPXbWtPxl2xCdSoeepS07jW8UgcHNurfHvUzogEq5xk hu507c3BarVjyWCJOylMNR98Yd8VqD9UfmX0Hb8/BrA+Hl6/DB/eqGptrf4BSRwcZQM32aZK 7Pj2XbGWIUrZrd70x1eAP9QE3P79Y2oLrsCgbZJfEwCgvz9JjGmQqQkRiTVzlZVCJYcyGGsD /0tbFCzD2h20ahe8rC1gbb3K3qk+LpBtvjBu1RY9drYk0NymiGbJWZgab6t1jM7sk2vuf0Py O9Hf9XBmK0uE9IgMaiCpc32XV9oASz6UJebwkX+zF2jG5I1BfnO9g7KlotcA/v5ClMjgo6Gl MDY4HxoSRu3i1cqqSDtVlt+AOVBJBACrZcnHAUSuCXBPy0jOlBhxPqRWv6ND4c9PH1xjQ3NP nxJuMBS8rnNg22uyfAgmBKNLpLgAGVRMZGaGoJObGf72s6TeIqKJo/LtggAS9qAUiuKVnygo 3wjfkS9A3DRO+SpU7JqWdsveeIQyeyEJ/8PTowmSQLakF+3fote9ybzd880fSmFuIEJldWxp Y2ggPGpiZXVsaWNoQHN1c2UuY29tPsJgBBMRAgAgBQJZN5xEAhsDBgsJCAcDAgQVAggDBBYC AwECHgECF4AACgkQoDSui/t3IH4J+wCfQ5jHdEjCRHj23O/5ttg9r9OIruwAn3103WUITZee e7Sbg12UgcQ5lv7SzsFNBFk3nEQQCACCuTjCjFOUdi5Nm244F+78kLghRcin/awv+IrTcIWF hUpSs1Y91iQQ7KItirz5uwCPlwejSJDQJLIS+QtJHaXDXeV6NI0Uef1hP20+y8qydDiVkv6l IreXjTb7DvksRgJNvCkWtYnlS3mYvQ9NzS9PhyALWbXnH6sIJd2O9lKS1Mrfq+y0IXCP10eS FFGg+Av3IQeFatkJAyju0PPthyTqxSI4lZYuJVPknzgaeuJv/2NccrPvmeDg6Coe7ZIeQ8Yj t0ARxu2xytAkkLCel1Lz1WLmwLstV30g80nkgZf/wr+/BXJW/oIvRlonUkxv+IbBM3dX2OV8 AmRv1ySWPTP7AAMFB/9PQK/VtlNUJvg8GXj9ootzrteGfVZVVT4XBJkfwBcpC/XcPzldjv+3 HYudvpdNK3lLujXeA5fLOH+Z/G9WBc5pFVSMocI71I8bT8lIAzreg0WvkWg5V2WZsUMlnDL9 mpwIGFhlbM3gfDMs7MPMu8YQRFVdUvtSpaAs8OFfGQ0ia3LGZcjA6Ik2+xcqscEJzNH+qh8V m5jjp28yZgaqTaRbg3M/+MTbMpicpZuqF4rnB0AQD12/3BNWDR6bmh+EkYSMcEIpQmBM51qM EKYTQGybRCjpnKHGOxG0rfFY1085mBDZCH5Kx0cl0HVJuQKC+dV2ZY5AqjcKwAxpE75MLFkr wkkEGBECAAkFAlk3nEQCGwwACgkQoDSui/t3IH7nnwCfcJWUDUFKdCsBH/E5d+0ZnMQi+G0A nAuWpQkjM1ASeQwSHEeAWPgskBQL
- Cc: Roger Pau Monné <roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx>, Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@xxxxxxxxxx>, Julien Grall <julien@xxxxxxx>, Bertrand Marquis <bertrand.marquis@xxxxxxx>, Michal Orzel <michal.orzel@xxxxxxx>, "Daniel P. Smith" <dpsmith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>, xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Delivery-date: Fri, 06 Jun 2025 06:56:29 +0000
- List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xenproject.org>
On 05.06.2025 19:40, Alejandro Vallejo wrote:
> 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?
The loss of the underscore (separating the words) in the struct tag, aiui.
Jan
|
