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

[Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, 6 Jun 2025, Jan Beulich wrote:
> 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.

As I wrote in reply to the other patch, I would ask that we keep the
code movement and the renaming separate.

With that said, I don't mind a global s/bootmodule/boot_module/g across
the codebase, but please let's keep it as a separate patch to make it
easier to review.

However, we don't actually have a code style asking for _ in struct
tags. So while I don't mind the global s/bootmodule/boot_module/g, it
might be best we at least briefly discuss it as a group to make sure we
are all aligned.