On 10.10.2024 01:42, Daniel P. Smith wrote: > On 10/9/24 02:53, Jan Beulich wrote: >> On 08.10.2024 21:15, Jason Andryuk wrote: >>> On 2024-10-06 17:49, Daniel P. Smith wrote: >>>> Any direct usages of struct mod have been transitioned, remove the >>>> remaining >>>> references to early_mod fields. >>> >>> This is unclear, please try to re-word. "struct mod" and "early_mod" >>> don't exist. >>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Daniel P. Smith <dpsm...@apertussolutions.com> >>>> --- >>>> xen/arch/x86/setup.c | 31 +++++++++++-------------------- >>>> 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/xen/arch/x86/setup.c b/xen/arch/x86/setup.c >>>> index e9e3da3204f1..0ffe8d3ff8dd 100644 >>>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/setup.c >>>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/setup.c >>> >>>> @@ -1404,16 +1401,12 @@ void asmlinkage __init noreturn >>>> __start_xen(unsigned long mbi_p) >>>> */ >>>> bi->mods[xen].start = virt_to_mfn(_stext); >>>> bi->mods[xen].size = __2M_rwdata_end - _stext; >>>> - >>>> - bi->mods[xen].mod->mod_start = bi->mods[xen].start; >>>> - bi->mods[xen].mod->mod_end = bi->mods[xen].size; >>>> } >>>> >>>> - bi->mods[0].headroom = >>>> - bzimage_headroom(bootstrap_map(bi->mods[0].mod), >>>> - bi->mods[0].mod->mod_end); >>>> - >>>> - bootstrap_map(NULL); >>>> + bi->mods[0].headroom = bzimage_headroom( >>>> + bootstrap_map_bm(&bi->mods[0]), >>>> + bi->mods[0].size); >>> >>> Thunderbird might corrupt this, bit the above can fit on two lines: >>> bi->mods[0].headroom = >>> bzimage_headroom(bootstrap_map_bm(&bi->mods[0]), >>> bi->mods[0].size); >> >> Or else at least indentation wants to change, to one of the two possible >> forms: >> >> bi->mods[0].headroom = bzimage_headroom( >> bootstrap_map_bm(&bi->mods[0]), >> bi->mods[0].size); >> >> (indentation increased by a level from the start of the statement) or >> >> bi->mods[0].headroom = bzimage_headroom( >> bootstrap_map_bm(&bi->mods[0]), >> bi->mods[0].size); >> >> (indentation by one level biased from the start of the function call). >> Personally, if already wrapping like this, I'd prefer the former. > > I agree with you, the former is more pleasing, though wouldn't line 3 > fit on line 2?
Yes, looks like it would. Jan
