Re: [PATCH v5 00/44] Boot modules for Hyperlaunch

[Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On 08/10/2024 9:07 pm, Jason Andryuk wrote:
> On 2024-10-06 17:49, Daniel P. Smith wrote:
>> The Boot Modules for Hyperlaunch series is an effort to split out
>> preliminary
>> changes necessary for the introduction of the Hyperlaunch domain builder
>> logic. These preliminary changes revolve around introducing the struct
>> boot_module and struct boot_domain structures. This includes
>> converting the
>> dom0 construction path to use these structures. These abstractions
>> lay the
>> groundwork to transform and extend the dom0 construction logic into a
>> limited,
>> but general domain builder.
>>
>> The splitting of Hyperlaunch into a set of series are twofold, to
>> reduce the
>> effort in reviewing a much larger series, and to reduce the effort in
>> handling
>> the knock-on effects to the construction logic from requested review
>> changes.
>>
>> Much thanks to AMD for supporting this work.
>>
>> Documentation on Hyperlaunch:
>> https://wiki.xenproject.org/wiki/Hyperlaunch
>>
>> Original Hyperlaunch v1 patch series:
>> https://lists.xenproject.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2022-07/msg00345.html
>>
>
> There is a lot of re-formatting of function arguments like:
>
> -static int __init pvh_load_kernel(struct domain *d, const module_t
> *image,
> -                                  unsigned long image_headroom,
> -                                  module_t *initrd, void *image_base,
> -                                  const char *cmdline, paddr_t *entry,
> -                                  paddr_t *start_info_addr)
> +static int __init pvh_load_kernel(
> +    struct domain *d, const struct boot_module *image,
> +    struct boot_module *initrd, void *image_base,
> +    const char *cmdline, paddr_t *entry, paddr_t *start_info_addr)
>
> I feel like the old style is more common and I prefer it.  But I also
> don't see it specified in CODING_STYLE.  As I am not a maintainer, I'd
> like them to weigh in.

I already did.  :)

This isn't a terribly bad example, but there are others which are much
worse.  Given a choice between an intractable mess of parameters
squeezed onto the RHS, and the same mess spread out across the whole
width, prefer the latter.

~Andrew