Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] xen/arm: split set_domain_type() between arm64/arm32

[Volodymyr Babchuk <Volodymyr_Babchuk@epam.com>]

Hi Grygorii,

Grygorii Strashko <grygorii_strashko@epam.com> writes:

> On 27.08.25 03:22, Volodymyr Babchuk wrote:
>> Hi,
>> Grygorii Strashko <grygorii_strashko@epam.com> writes:
>> 
>>> From: Grygorii Strashko <grygorii_strashko@epam.com>
>>>
>>> Split set_domain_type() between Arm64/Arm32 sub-arches as
>>> set_domain_type() implementation is going to be extended for Arm64.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Grygorii Strashko <grygorii_strashko@epam.com>
>>> ---
>>> v2:
>>> - no changes, rebase
>>>
>>>   xen/arch/arm/arm32/Makefile       |  1 +
>>>   xen/arch/arm/arm32/domain-build.c | 22 ++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>   xen/arch/arm/arm64/Makefile       |  1 +
>>>   xen/arch/arm/arm64/domain-build.c | 24 ++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>   xen/arch/arm/dom0less-build.c     | 14 --------------
>>>   xen/include/xen/dom0less-build.h  |  8 ++++++++
>>>   6 files changed, 56 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
>>>   create mode 100644 xen/arch/arm/arm32/domain-build.c
>>>   create mode 100644 xen/arch/arm/arm64/domain-build.c
>> Is it really worth to create two more source files just for one
>> function? Maybe it is better to use already existing
>> xen/arch/arm/arm*/domain.c ?
>
> It seems a common approach used for splitting ARM subarch code.
> code from arch/arm/A.c goes in
>  -> arch/arm/arm32/A.c
>  -> arch/arm/arm64/A.c
> (just "-" is used vs "_")

Yeah, my point was that both arch/arm/arm32/domain.c and
arch/arm/arm64/domain.c already exists, so you don't have to create a
new files. But this is up to you, actually. I'll be fine with either
approach, just wanted to mentioned that there is another way.

[...]

-- 
WBR, Volodymyr