Re: [PATCH 3/3] CI: Adjust how domU is packaged in dom0

[Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>]

On 28/05/2025 1:30 am, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> On Thu, 22 May 2025, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>> diff --git a/automation/scripts/qubes-x86-64.sh b/automation/scripts/qubes-x86-64.sh
>> index 1dd3f48b3d29..17a37134f46a 100755
>> --- a/automation/scripts/qubes-x86-64.sh
>> +++ b/automation/scripts/qubes-x86-64.sh
>> @@ -185,12 +185,24 @@ Kernel \r on an \m (\l)
>>      find . | cpio -H newc -o | gzip >> ../binaries/domU-rootfs.cpio.gz
>>      cd ..
>>      rm -rf rootfs
>> +
>> +    # Package domU kernel+rootfs in /root for dom0 (uncompressed)
>> +    mkdir -p rootfs/root
>> +    cd rootfs
>> +    cp ../binaries/bzImage root/vmlinuz-domU
>> +    cp ../binaries/domU-rootfs.cpio.gz root/initrd-domU
>> +    find . | cpio -H newc -o > ../binaries/domU-in-dom0.cpio
>> +    cd ..
>> +    rm -rf rootfs
>>  fi
>>  
>>  # Dom0 rootfs.  The order or concatination is important; ucode wants to come
>>  # first, and all uncompressed must be ahead of compressed.
>>  parts=(
>>      binaries/ucode.cpio
>> +)
>> +[ -n "$domU_check" ] && parts+=(binaries/domU-in-dom0.cpio)
> This is a NIT but I have been trying to avoid this format in favor of
>
> if [ -n "$domU_check" ]
> then
>     parts+=(binaries/domU-in-dom0.cpio)
> fi
>
> for readibility.

This is a weird one, because the (relevant) readability is the
components of parts, and it's easier to scan without the extra blank
lines.  Nevertheless, ...

>
>
> I can see the patch is correct. It adds a bit of complexity in exchange
> for a small improvement. I am not sure if the trade off is worth it, but
> I'll ack it anyway.

... see the thread on the previous patch.  This was the RFC "I'd like to
find a nicer way of doing it", and Anthony has made a suggestion which I
need to experiment with.

> Reviewed-by: Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@kernel.org>

Thanks, but do you have any input on the /boot vs /root question on the
other part of the thread?

~Andrew