On Thu, 9 May 2013 11:11:01 -0700, Christoffer Dall
<cdall@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
> On Fri, May 03, 2013 at 03:02:52PM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>> As KVM/arm64 is looming on the horizon, it makes sense to move some
>> of the common code to a single location in order to reduce duplication.
>>
>> The code could live anywhere. Actually, most of KVM is already built
>> with a bunch of ugly ../../.. hacks in the various Makefiles, so we're
>> not exactly talking about style here. But maybe it is time to start
>> moving into a less ugly direction.
>>
>> The include files must be in a "public" location, as they are accessed
>> from non-KVM files (arch/arm/kernel/asm-offsets.c).
>>
>> For this purpose, introduce two new locations:
>> - virt/kvm/arm/ : x86 and ia64 already share the ioapic code in
>> virt/kvm, so this could be seen as a (very ugly) precedent.
>> - include/kvm/ : there is already an include/xen, and while the
>> intent is slightly different, this seems as good a location as
>> any
>
> This overall looks ok, just a few points:
>
> 1. Should we have a namespace per arch in the include directory, as in
> include/kvm/arm?
So I thought of that at one point, but discarded the idea because it seems
to convey the wrong message:
We're moving the include files because they are architecture independent,
and referring to an architecture name in the path feels a bit odd. Or maybe
arm-common?
I don't have strong feelings about it though...
> 2. We could drop the kvm_ prefix from the include files now
Agreed.
It would be interesting to see what the KVM maintainers think of all this.
Gleb? Paolo?
M.
--
Fast, cheap, reliable. Pick two.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
