On 08.04.2025 18:07, Alejandro Vallejo wrote:
> --- a/xen/arch/x86/domain-builder/fdt.c
> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/domain-builder/fdt.c
> @@ -195,6 +195,35 @@ static int __init process_domain_node(
> !((char *)__va(bd->kernel->cmdline_pa))[0] )
> bd->kernel->fdt_cmdline = fdt_get_prop_offset(
> fdt, node, "bootargs", &bd->kernel->cmdline_pa);
> +
> + continue;
With this ...
> + }
> + else if ( fdt_node_check_compatible(fdt, node,
... no need for "else" here?
> + "multiboot,ramdisk") == 0 )
> + {
> + int idx;
> +
> + if ( bd->module )
> + {
> + printk(XENLOG_ERR "Duplicate ramdisk module for domain
> %s)\n",
Stray ')' in the string literal.
> + name);
> + continue;
> + }
> +
> + idx = fdt_read_multiboot_module(fdt, node, address_cells,
> + size_cells,bi);
> + if ( idx < 0 )
> + {
> + printk(" failed processing ramdisk module for domain %s\n",
> + name);
> + return -EINVAL;
> + }
Along the lines of what Denis has said - please be consistent about log
messages: XENLOG_* or not, preferably no capital at the start, initial
blank padding. May apply elsewhere in the series as well.
> + printk(" ramdisk: boot module %d\n", idx);
> + bi->mods[idx].type = BOOTMOD_RAMDISK;
> + bd->module = &bi->mods[idx];
The field's named "module" now, but that now ends up inconsistent with
naming used elsewhere, as is pretty noticeable here.
> + continue;
This isn't strictly needed, is it, ...
> }
> }
... considering we're at the bottom of the loop?
Jan
