Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] MAINTAINERS: Add myself as x86 I/O emulation and viridian maintainer

[Paul Durrant <Paul.Durrant@xxxxxxxxxx>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jan Beulich [mailto:JBeulich@xxxxxxxx]
> Sent: 31 March 2016 09:17
> To: Paul Durrant
> Cc: xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] MAINTAINERS: Add myself as x86 I/O
> emulation and viridian maintainer
> 
> >>> On 31.03.16 at 10:00, <Paul.Durrant@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>  -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Xen-devel [mailto:xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
> Jan
> >> Beulich
> >> Sent: 31 March 2016 08:52
> >> To: Paul Durrant
> >> Cc: xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] MAINTAINERS: Add myself as x86 I/O
> >> emulation and viridian maintainer
> >>
> >> >>> On 31.03.16 at 09:28, <paul.durrant@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> > I have made many modifications to this code over the past few years
> >> > so I'm probably the one most familiar with it.
> >> >
> >> > Signed-off-by: Paul Durrant <paul.durrant@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >> > ---
> >> >  MAINTAINERS | 16 ++++++++++++++++
> >> >  1 file changed, 16 insertions(+)
> >> >
> >> > diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS
> >> > index e765311..43bbb8f 100644
> >> > --- a/MAINTAINERS
> >> > +++ b/MAINTAINERS
> >> > @@ -384,6 +384,16 @@ F:  xen/include/asm-x86/
> >> >  F:      tools/firmware/hvmloader/
> >> >  F:      tools/tests/x86_emulator/
> >> >
> >> > +X86 I/O EMULATION
> >> > +M:      Paul Durrant <paul.durrant@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >> > +S:      Supported
> >> > +F:      xen/arch/x86/hvm/emulate.c
> >> > +F:      xen/arch/x86/hvm/hvm.c
> >>
> >> This file doesn't really belong here (as containing a lot of other
> >> stuff).
> >
> > I'm concerned about missing any changes to the ioreq server code that's in
> > there. Would it perhaps be better to split that code out at this point?
> 
> Yes, splitting out at least all the ioreq server code is likely a good
> idea, and once split out the new file should be added here.
> 
> >> Instead I think you also want ...
> >>
> >> > +F:      xen/arch/x86/hvm/intercept.c
> >>
> >> F: xen/arch/x86/hvm/io.c
> >
> > Yes, I missed that.
> >
> >>
> >> > +F:      xen/include/asm-x86/hvm/hvm.h
> >>
> >> And this again doesn't belong here, while
> >>
> >> F: xen/include/asm-x86/hvm/emulate.h
> >>
> >> seems missing.
> >>
> >
> > Yes, that should be there too.
> >
> >> If you agree, I can do these adjustments while committing.
> >>
> >
> > I agree to the additions and dropping hvm.h, but I'd like to keep hvm.c
> > pending potentially splitting out the ioreq server code.
> 
> One of the topics I intend to bring up on the hackathon is the
> ambiguous meaning of such an entry: It's never been clear to me
> whether a more narrow F: in one section would override a wider
> F: in another. In the case here such an override would not be
> intended. Otoh x86/mm/shadow/ vs x86/mm/ vs x86/ all are more
> likely to imply such an override. Until that's fully clarified I'm not
> agreeing to add hvm.c here.
> 

Ok, given the ambiguity that's fair enough. I'll prep. a patch for separating 
the ioreq server code out.

  Paul

> Jan


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