From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Julien Grall Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] xen: arm: Only lookup kernel/initrd bootmodule once while building dom0. Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 13:20:54 +0100 Message-ID: <53CD05A6.2020203@linaro.org> References: <1405944556-8372-1-git-send-email-ian.campbell@citrix.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1405944556-8372-1-git-send-email-ian.campbell@citrix.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Ian Campbell , xen-devel@lists.xen.org Cc: tim@xen.org, stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 07/21/2014 01:09 PM, Ian Campbell wrote: > Signed-off-by: Ian Campbell > --- > v4: Call the new field kernel_bootmodule for clarity > Use the new field throughout kernel.c as well as in domain_build.c > Add and use initrd_bootmodule too. > Const up the uses > v3: New patch > --- > xen/arch/arm/domain_build.c | 6 +++--- > xen/arch/arm/kernel.c | 2 ++ > xen/arch/arm/kernel.h | 1 + > 3 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/xen/arch/arm/domain_build.c b/xen/arch/arm/domain_build.c > index 154367e..23261e4 100644 > --- a/xen/arch/arm/domain_build.c > +++ b/xen/arch/arm/domain_build.c > @@ -405,7 +405,7 @@ static int write_properties(struct domain *d, struct kernel_info *kinfo, > int res = 0; > int had_dom0_bootargs = 0; > > - struct bootmodule *mod = boot_module_find_by_kind(BOOTMOD_KERNEL); > + const struct bootmodule *mod = kinfo->kernel_bootmodule; > > if ( mod && mod->cmdline[0] ) > bootargs = &mod->cmdline[0]; > @@ -455,7 +455,7 @@ static int write_properties(struct domain *d, struct kernel_info *kinfo, > > if ( dt_node_path_is_equal(node, "/chosen") ) > { > - struct bootmodule *mod = boot_module_find_by_kind(BOOTMOD_RAMDISK); > + const struct bootmodule *mod = kinfo->initrd_bootmodule; Technically speaking, we only execute once this part of the code. So having a new field in kernel_info doesn't seem useful. BTW, the function already have a variable "mod" defined at the begining. I would rename this variable to modinitrd or smth different to shadow the previous variable. Regards, -- Julien Grall