> On 16 Sep 2021, at 07:50, Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com> wrote:
>
> On 16.09.2021 03:16, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
>> On Wed, 15 Sep 2021, Luca Fancellu wrote:
>>> +static void __init handle_dom0less_domain_node(EFI_FILE_HANDLE dir_handle,
>>> + int domain_node,
>>> + int addr_cells,
>>> + int size_cells)
>>> +{
>>> + /*
>>> + * Check for nodes compatible with
>>> multiboot,{kernel,ramdisk,device-tree}
>>> + * inside this node
>>> + */
>>> + for ( int module_node = fdt_first_subnode(fdt, domain_node);
>>
>> int module_node;
>>
>> for ( module_node = fdt_first_subnode(fdt, domain_node);
>
> Not just here iirc from briefly looking over the patch as a whole
> yesterday: Use of plain "int" would better be limited to cases where
> values may also be negative. I don't suppose that's possible here as
> well as in a number of other cases.
Hi Jan,
fdt_first_subnode(…) can return -FDT_ERR_NOTFOUND.
>
>>> @@ -1285,14 +1286,21 @@ efi_start(EFI_HANDLE ImageHandle, EFI_SYSTEM_TABLE
>>> *SystemTable)
>>> efi_bs->FreePool(name.w);
>>> }
>>>
>>> - if ( !name.s )
>>> - blexit(L"No Dom0 kernel image specified.");
>>> -
>>> efi_arch_cfg_file_early(loaded_image, dir_handle, section.s);
>>>
>>> - option_str = split_string(name.s);
>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_ARM
>>> + /* dom0less feature is supported only on ARM */
>>> + dom0less_found = check_dom0less_efi_boot(dir_handle);
>>> +#endif
>>
>> Rather than an #ifdef here you can simply implement
>> check_dom0less_efi_boot on x86 as a static inline returning always
>> false.
>
> Indeed, and the properly named (efi_arch_...()).
Ok, I was unsure if a solution like that was going to be accepted, I will
update the code then.
Cheers,
Luca
>
> Jan
>
