On 05.06.2025 19:40, Alejandro Vallejo wrote: > On Thu Jun 5, 2025 at 7:28 PM CEST, Alejandro Vallejo wrote: >> On Mon Jun 2, 2025 at 7:00 PM CEST, Andrew Cooper wrote: >>> On 30/05/2025 1:02 pm, Alejandro Vallejo wrote: >>>> These types resemble each other very closely in layout and intent, and >>>> with "struct bootmodule" already in common code it makes perfect sense >>>> to merge them. In order to do so, add an arch-specific area for >>>> x86-specific tidbits. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Alejandro Vallejo <agarc...@amd.com> >>> >>> Yet this is a distinct backwards step in terms of legibility. >>> >>> How about modifying the common code to be more legible, rather than >>> regressing the x86 code. >>> >>> ~Andrew >> >> I meant to ifdef out the fields unused on x86, but after some massaging I >> think I got it lookin much nicer. It's essentially using the common parts of >> kernel_info and boot_domain as a header to kernel_info. >> >> That way, x86 keeps using a substantially smaller (yet common) data structure >> while the rest of dom0less can keep using the original as-is. >> >> Refactoring kernel_info to rationalise its contents is somewhere in my TODO >> list, but I have much more urgent fish to fry first. >> >> Cheers, >> Alejandro > > ... I misread the comment and thought it was in the following patch rather > than this one. > > If it was indeed intended here, I'm at a loss as to what you'd rather do. > Common bindings need a common ground. This is such ground. The data structures > are virtually identical and used for identical purposes. > > What's the legibility step you're talking about?
The loss of the underscore (separating the words) in the struct tag, aiui. Jan
