From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Marc Zyngier Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 16/21] arm64: KVM: Add compatibility aliases Date: Wed, 02 Dec 2015 15:23:56 +0000 Message-ID: <565F0D0C.9010801@arm.com> References: <1448650215-15218-1-git-send-email-marc.zyngier@arm.com> <1448650215-15218-17-git-send-email-marc.zyngier@arm.com> <20151202114920.GB18376@cbox> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20151202114920.GB18376@cbox> Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Christoffer Dall Cc: =?windows-1252?Q?Alex_Benn=E9e?= , Steve Capper , Ard Biesheuvel , Mark Rutland , Catalin Marinas , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org, kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu List-Id: kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu On 02/12/15 11:49, Christoffer Dall wrote: > On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 06:50:10PM +0000, Marc Zyngier wrote: >> So far, we've implemented the new world switch with a completely >> different namespace, so that we could have both implementation >> compiled in. >> >> Let's take things one step further by adding weak aliases that >> have the same names as the original implementation. The weak >> attributes allows the new implementation to be overriden by the >> old one, and everything still work. > > Do I understand correctly that the whole point of this is to keep > everything compiling nicely while at the same time being able to split > the patches so that you can have an isolated "remove old code" patch > that doesn't have to change the callers? Exactly. > If so, I think explaining this rationale would be helpful in the commit > message in case we have to go back and track these changes in connection > with a regression and don't remember why we did things this way. Fair enough. I'll update the commit message (possibly by stealing a large part of the above text!). > Maybe I'm being over-cautious though... > > Otherwise: > > Acked-by: Christoffer Dall Thanks, M. -- Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...