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
