Re: [RFC] vPMU support for AMD system

[Wei Huang <wei@redhat.com>]

>
> (if-else forest is daunting.)
>
>> I think this approach is quite acceptable, except that there will be many
>> if-else in the code. Not clean enough.
>>
>> (b) Convert intel-pmu.c => vmx.c and convert amd-pmu.c => svm.c
>> * PMU function pointers will be created in kvm_x86_ops;
>> * The entry functions will be created inside vmx.c and svm.c respectively;
>
> I would be nicer to keep them in separate files and link to vmx/svm.
>
>> * There might be common functions defined in pmu.c.
>>
>> This design is viable too. But to be honest, it is a bit messy compared with
>> (a).
>
> This makes sense as we will use only vmx+intel_pmu and svm+amd_pmu, so
> we'd have less code loaded in both cases.
>
> I consider design (c) strictly better than the current one (2):
>    (c) keep {intel,amd}-pmu.c and introduce pmu.[hc] that joins duplicate
>        functions and wraps kvm_pmu_ops
Thanks for the suggestion. I will take this into consideration. Your 
suggestion is similar to existing svm.c/vmx.c/x86.c, which split 
distinct functions in vmx.c/svm.c; but in the meanwhile merging them in 
x86.c for common code.
>
> And if we decide to move VMX/SVM related code into their respective
> modules, we won't have to change callers.
>
Yes.