From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Hollis Blanchard Subject: Re: [kvm-ppc-devel] [PATCH 2/3] Split kvmctl for architectures Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 15:40:10 -0500 Message-ID: <1192740010.21205.20.camel@basalt> References: <1192738258.12849.26.camel@thinkpad> <4717C1E9.1050501@codemonkey.ws> <1192739832.12849.39.camel@thinkpad> Reply-To: Hollis Blanchard Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: kvm-devel , kvm-ppc-devel To: jyoung5-r/Jw6+rmf7HQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1192739832.12849.39.camel@thinkpad> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: kvm-devel-bounces-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org Errors-To: kvm-devel-bounces-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org List-Id: kvm.vger.kernel.org On Thu, 2007-10-18 at 15:37 -0500, Jerone Young wrote: > On Thu, 2007-10-18 at 15:28 -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote: > > > > A quick glance suggests that there's a lot of code duplication between > > things like main-x86.c and main-ppc.c. Perhaps the common code could be > > unified? > > I do have a main.c with ifdefs. But the feeling here is that as things > are added this gets hair really quick. Right now it's ok with only 2 > main architectures. But if others come in, this file could turn into an > ifdef mess. > > I really have no strong feelings on it. I can combine them. Contrary to popular belief, we can share code between multiple architectures without using ifdefs... -- Hollis Blanchard IBM Linux Technology Center ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop. Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser. Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/