On 11/6/24 18:06, Jason Andryuk wrote:
On 2024-11-02 13:25, Daniel P. Smith wrote:
With all the components used to construct dom0 encapsulated in struct
boot_info
and struct boot_module, it is no longer necessary to pass all them as
parameters down the domain construction call chain. Change the
parameter list
to pass the struct boot_info instance and the struct domain reference.
Signed-off-by: Daniel P. Smith <dpsm...@apertussolutions.com>
---
Changes since v5:
- renamed from "x86/boot: convert create_dom0 to use boot info"
Changes since v5:
- change headroom back to unsigned long
- make mod_idx unsigned int
---
xen/arch/x86/dom0_build.c | 9 ++--
xen/arch/x86/hvm/dom0_build.c | 49 +++++++++++++---------
xen/arch/x86/include/asm/dom0_build.h | 13 ++----
xen/arch/x86/include/asm/setup.h | 7 ++--
xen/arch/x86/pv/dom0_build.c | 59 ++++++++++++++++-----------
xen/arch/x86/setup.c | 33 ++++++++-------
6 files changed, 95 insertions(+), 75 deletions(-)
diff --git a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/dom0_build.c b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/
dom0_build.c
index a4ac262db463..cd97f94a168a 100644
--- a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/dom0_build.c
+++ b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/dom0_build.c
@@ -1301,16 +1302,25 @@ static void __hwdom_init
pvh_setup_mmcfg(struct domain *d)
}
}
-int __init dom0_construct_pvh(struct domain *d, const module_t *image,
- unsigned long image_headroom,
- module_t *initrd,
- const char *cmdline)
+int __init dom0_construct_pvh(struct boot_info *bi, struct domain *d)
{
paddr_t entry, start_info;
+ struct boot_module *image;
+ struct boot_module *initrd = NULL;
int rc;
printk(XENLOG_INFO "*** Building a PVH Dom%d ***\n", d->domain_id);
+ rc = first_boot_module_index(bi, BOOTMOD_KERNEL);
+ if ( unlikely(rc < 0 || rc > bi->nr_modules) )
Here and ...
+ panic("Missing kernel boot module for %pd construction\n", d);
+
+ image = &bi->mods[rc];
+
+ rc = first_boot_module_index(bi, BOOTMOD_RAMDISK);
+ if ( rc > 0 || rc < bi->nr_modules )
... here. Can we just check rc < bi->nr_modules for validity? Valid
modules are 0...nr_modules and not found is MAX_NR_BOOTMODS + 1. It
eliminates these unecessary double checks. This would apply to 04/12
"x86/boot: introduce module release" as well.
Please see my response to Andy's response.
@@ -613,7 +630,7 @@ static int __init dom0_construct(struct domain *d,
initrd_pfn = vinitrd_start ?
(vinitrd_start - v_start) >> PAGE_SHIFT :
domain_tot_pages(d);
- initrd_mfn = mfn = initrd->mod_start;
+ initrd_mfn = mfn = initrd->mod->mod_start;
MISRA doesn't like these assignment chains?
Ugh, correct. Regression, not sure why, from previous review.
count = PFN_UP(initrd_len);
if ( d->arch.physaddr_bitsize &&
((mfn + count - 1) >> (d->arch.physaddr_bitsize -
PAGE_SHIFT)) )
@@ -628,17 +645,17 @@ static int __init dom0_construct(struct domain *d,
free_domheap_pages(page, order);
page += 1UL << order;
}
- memcpy(page_to_virt(page), mfn_to_virt(initrd->mod_start),
+ memcpy(page_to_virt(page), mfn_to_virt(initrd->mod-
>mod_start),
initrd_len);
- release_module(initrd, true);
- initrd->mod_start = initrd_mfn = mfn_x(page_to_mfn(page));
+ release_boot_module(initrd, true);
+ initrd->mod->mod_start = initrd_mfn =
mfn_x(page_to_mfn(page));
Assignment chain here.
Ack.
v/r,
dps
