> On 11 Apr 2022, at 07:15, Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com> wrote:
>
> 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.
Yes I agree with you all, I will rename it to xen/common/sched/boot-cpupool.c
and add it in MAINTAINERS.
>
> Jan
