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

[Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

On 08.04.2022 22:25, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> 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.

Yet even then, with cpupools.c living in sched/, ...

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

... this one may want living there are well.

Jan