On 08.04.2022 22:25, Stefano Stabellini wrote: > On Fri, 8 Apr 2022, Jan Beulich wrote: >> On 08.04.2022 13:37, Luca Fancellu wrote: >>> >>> >>>> On 8 Apr 2022, at 10:01, Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> On 08.04.2022 10:45, Luca Fancellu wrote: >>>>> --- >>>>> docs/misc/arm/device-tree/cpupools.txt | 140 +++++++++++++++++ >>>>> xen/arch/arm/include/asm/smp.h | 3 + >>>>> xen/common/Kconfig | 7 + >>>>> xen/common/Makefile | 1 + >>>>> xen/common/boot_cpupools.c | 207 +++++++++++++++++++++++++ >>>>> xen/common/sched/cpupool.c | 12 +- >>>>> xen/include/xen/sched.h | 14 ++ >>>>> 7 files changed, 383 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >>>>> create mode 100644 docs/misc/arm/device-tree/cpupools.txt >>>>> create mode 100644 xen/common/boot_cpupools.c >>>> >>>> Under whose maintainership is the new file to fall? Without an >>>> addition to ./MAINTAINERS and without the file being placed in >>>> xen/common/sched/, it'll be REST maintainers, which I think would >>>> better be avoided. Would it perhaps make sense to have this as >>>> xen/common/sched/boot.c, allowing other boot-only code to >>>> potentially be moved there over time? This would then also avoid >>>> me asking about the underscore in the file name: Underscores are >>>> a somewhat artificial thing for use in places where dashes can't >>>> be used. Yet in the file system dashes are fine, and dashes are >>>> (slightly) easier to type. >>>> >>> >>> Ok I can put the new file under xen/common/sched/ as boot.c, should this new >>> file be under this section? >>> >>> CPU POOLS >>> M: Juergen Gross <jgr...@suse.com> >>> M: Dario Faggioli <dfaggi...@suse.com> >>> S: Supported >>> F: xen/common/sched/cpupool.c >>> + F: xen/common/sched/boot.c >> >> If it's to hold general scheduler code (which this shorter name would >> suggest), it shouldn't need any change to ./MAINTAINERS as the >> scheduler section would already cover it then. If it was to remain >> CPU-pools-specific, then you'd need to stick to the longer name and >> put it in the section you have reproduced above. > > In my opinion it is best if the maintenance of boot_cpupools.c falls > under "CPU POOLS". Luca, you can retain my reviewed-by when you add > the change to MAINTAINERS or rename the file.
Yet even then, with cpupools.c living in sched/, ... > I don't have an opinion if it should be called > xen/common/boot_cpupools.c or xen/common/boot-cpupools.c > ... this one may want living there are well. Jan
