Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] xen: remove init_constructors out of start_xen

[Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

On 03.08.2022 04:44, Boyoun Park wrote:
> From: Boyoun Park <boyoun.park@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2022 10:31:55 +0900
> Subject: [PATCH v2 2/2] xen: remove init_constructors out of start_xen
> 
> This patch removed init_constructors from start_xen
> by using __late_initcall.
> It can be applied to other init functions in start_xen
> so that only main init functions are included in there.

Only if the relative order in which they're called doesn't matter. In
fact ...

> To use __late_initcall, the format of a function should
> be changed according to initcall. Thus, the return type
> of init_constructors function is changed in this patch.

... you're changing the point in time when the constructors are called.
This _may_ be fine, but the reason(s) why it is would need supplying in
the description.

> Change-Id: Ife13484d346cff15983aacbfefde21d508f4690a

Please omit such.

> --- a/xen/include/xen/lib.h
> +++ b/xen/include/xen/lib.h
> @@ -211,7 +211,7 @@ extern void add_taint(unsigned int taint);
>  struct cpu_user_regs;
>  void cf_check dump_execstate(struct cpu_user_regs *);
>  
> -void init_constructors(void);
> +int init_constructors(void);

This wants to be removed, with ...

> --- a/xen/lib/ctors.c
> +++ b/xen/lib/ctors.c
> @@ -4,7 +4,7 @@
>  typedef void (*ctor_func_t)(void);
>  extern const ctor_func_t __ctors_start[], __ctors_end[];
>  
> -void __init init_constructors(void)
> +int __init init_constructors(void)

... static added here.

> @@ -12,8 +12,12 @@ void __init init_constructors(void)
>  
>      /* Putting this here seems as good (or bad) as any other place. */
>      BUILD_BUG_ON(sizeof(size_t) != sizeof(ssize_t));
> +
> +    return 0;
>  }
>  
> +__late_initcall(init_constructors);
> +
>  /*
>   * Local variables:
>   * mode: C

We prefer to not leave a blank line between the function referenced by
__initcall et al and the __initcall() itself.

Jan