Re: [PATCH v6 4/6] xen/cpupool: Create different cpupools at boot time

[Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, 8 Apr 2022, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 08.04.2022 13:37, Luca Fancellu wrote:
> > 
> > 
> >> On 8 Apr 2022, at 10:01, Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >> On 08.04.2022 10:45, Luca Fancellu wrote:
> >>> ---
> >>> docs/misc/arm/device-tree/cpupools.txt | 140 +++++++++++++++++
> >>> xen/arch/arm/include/asm/smp.h         |   3 +
> >>> xen/common/Kconfig                     |   7 +
> >>> xen/common/Makefile                    |   1 +
> >>> xen/common/boot_cpupools.c             | 207 +++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >>> xen/common/sched/cpupool.c             |  12 +-
> >>> xen/include/xen/sched.h                |  14 ++
> >>> 7 files changed, 383 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >>> create mode 100644 docs/misc/arm/device-tree/cpupools.txt
> >>> create mode 100644 xen/common/boot_cpupools.c
> >>
> >> Under whose maintainership is the new file to fall? Without an
> >> addition to ./MAINTAINERS and without the file being placed in
> >> xen/common/sched/, it'll be REST maintainers, which I think would
> >> better be avoided. Would it perhaps make sense to have this as
> >> xen/common/sched/boot.c, allowing other boot-only code to
> >> potentially be moved there over time? This would then also avoid
> >> me asking about the underscore in the file name: Underscores are
> >> a somewhat artificial thing for use in places where dashes can't
> >> be used. Yet in the file system dashes are fine, and dashes are
> >> (slightly) easier to type.
> >>
> > 
> > Ok I can put the new file under xen/common/sched/ as boot.c, should this new
> > file be under this section?
> > 
> > CPU POOLS
> > M:  Juergen Gross <jgross@xxxxxxxx>
> > M:  Dario Faggioli <dfaggioli@xxxxxxxx>
> > S:  Supported
> > F:  xen/common/sched/cpupool.c
> > + F:  xen/common/sched/boot.c
> 
> If it's to hold general scheduler code (which this shorter name would
> suggest), it shouldn't need any change to ./MAINTAINERS as the
> scheduler section would already cover it then. If it was to remain
> CPU-pools-specific, then you'd need to stick to the longer name and
> put it in the section you have reproduced above.

In my opinion it is best if the maintenance of boot_cpupools.c falls
under "CPU POOLS". Luca, you can retain my reviewed-by when you add
the change to MAINTAINERS or rename the file.

I don't have an opinion if it should be called
xen/common/boot_cpupools.c or xen/common/boot-cpupools.c