Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 1/7] arm: move arch/arm/hvm.c to arch/arm/hvm/hvm.c

[Tamas K Lengyel <tamas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 5:32 AM, Corneliu ZUZU <czuzu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On 2/9/2016 1:55 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:

On 09.02.16 at 12:28, <czuzu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On 2/9/2016 1:03 PM, Stefano Stabellini wrote:

On Mon, 8 Feb 2016, Corneliu ZUZU wrote:

X86-side hvm.c is @ arch/x86/hvm/hvm.c. To maintain arm<->x86 symmetry,
also move arch/arm/hvm.c to arch/arm/hvm/hvm.c.

Why are we doing this? These are not header files, their paths don't
necessarily need to be the same and xen/arch/x86/hvm/hvm.c is very
different from xen/arch/arm/hvm.c.

Please state the reason more clearly.

Signed-off-by: Corneliu ZUZU <czuzu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
 Âxen/arch/arm/Makefile  Â| 2 +-
 Âxen/arch/arm/hvm.c    | 67 -----------------------------------------------
 Âxen/arch/arm/hvm/Makefile | 1 +
 Âxen/arch/arm/hvm/hvm.c  | 66 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Because the ARM side hvm.c currently exists solely to add an implementation
for
do_hvm_op, which on x86 is @ arch/x86/hvm/hvm.c. I presume the ARM hvm.c got
its name
from the X86 file, so I thought a symmetry between the two was intended from
the start.
Also, the hvm directory was created to separate hvm-specific code, which is
the case w/
do_hvm_op on any arch.

While I'm not an ARM maintainer, this change still strikes me as odd
(or a change for the change's sake). A directory with just one file
in it (and - afaict - no current perspective to gain more) is just
pointless. In fact it's usually the other way around: When a file
grows (or would grow) too large, a similarly named subdirectory
gets introduced with the contents "scattered" across multiple files
in that directory.

Jan

There are already directories w/ just one/a few files in them, even small (e.g. common/gcov/gcov.c).
IMHO no harm is done if a file is put in its proper directory even before it grows too large.
This way one can find the file more easily, future additions are more visibly encouraged to
also be separated in that directory when it makes sense, symmetry between arch directories remains
intact (=> easier to compare between code for different arches/find equivalent files between them).

But I am not a Xen maintainer, I'm only a contributor so I can only suggest :).
If ARM maintainers (e.g. Tamas) feel the same, I will move the file back.

I don't really have a strong opinion about this either way, so if the others prefer it staying as it is then there is no point moving it.

Tamas

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel