Re: [PATCH v4 06/44] x86/boot: convert consider_modules to struct boot_module

[Daniel P. Smith]

On 9/4/24 06:41, Andrew Cooper wrote:
On 04/09/2024 7:40 am, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 30.08.2024 23:46, Daniel P. Smith wrote:
@@ -1447,7 +1447,7 @@ void asmlinkage __init noreturn __start_xen(unsigned long 
mbi_p)
          {
              /* Don't overlap with modules. */
              end = consider_modules(s, e, reloc_size + mask,
-                                   mod, boot_info->nr_mods, -1);
+                                   boot_info->mods, boot_info->nr_mods, -1);
              end &= ~mask;
          }
          else
@@ -1482,7 +1482,7 @@ void asmlinkage __init noreturn __start_xen(unsigned long 
mbi_p)
                  continue;
  
              /* Don't overlap with other modules (or Xen itself). */
-            end = consider_modules(s, e, size, mod,
+            end = consider_modules(s, e, size, boot_info->mods,
                                     boot_info->nr_mods + relocated, j);
  
              if ( highmem_start && end > highmem_start )
@@ -1509,7 +1509,7 @@ void asmlinkage __init noreturn __start_xen(unsigned long 
mbi_p)
          while ( !kexec_crash_area.start )
          {
              /* Don't overlap with modules (or Xen itself). */
-            e = consider_modules(s, e, PAGE_ALIGN(kexec_crash_area.size), mod,
+            e = consider_modules(s, e, PAGE_ALIGN(kexec_crash_area.size), 
boot_info->mods,
                                   boot_info->nr_mods + relocated, -1);
All of these show a meaningful increase of line lengths, up to the point of
ending up with too long a line here. I really wonder if the variable name
"boot_info" isn't too long for something that's going to be used quite
frequently. Just "bi" maybe?

Actually I noticed that too.

It's boot_info-> in setup.c, and bi-> everywhere else (with bm later too).

We should just use "bi" uniformly even in setup.c  (Or some other name,
but I'm happy with bi here - it's very easily qualified by it's field
names.)

Yes, I did make it "bi" as it was passed around, and will move setup.c 
to that as well. As for "bm", I will be moving the array into struct 
boot_info. When I do, is there a desire to see the element name to be 
"bm" or "bms"?

v/r,
dps