From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: marc.zyngier@arm.com (Marc Zyngier)
Date: Fri, 10 May 2013 09:46:29 +0100
Subject: [RFC PATCH 1/2] ARM: KVM: move GIC/timer code to a common location
In-Reply-To: <518CABBB.7050909@redhat.com>
References: <1367589773-5609-1-git-send-email-marc.zyngier@arm.com>
 <1367589773-5609-2-git-send-email-marc.zyngier@arm.com>
 <20130509181101.GA17253@gmail.com>
 <f816c184d2512dad242b383deac7453e@localhost> <518CABBB.7050909@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <518CB3E5.7090504@arm.com>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On 10/05/13 09:11, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Il 10/05/2013 09:23, Marc Zyngier ha scritto:
>>>> 1. Should we have a namespace per arch in the include directory, as in
>>>>    include/kvm/arm?
>> So I thought of that at one point, but discarded the idea because it seems
>> to convey the wrong message:
>> We're moving the include files because they are architecture independent,
>> and referring to an architecture name in the path feels a bit odd. Or maybe
>> arm-common?
> 
> As I wrote in the other message, Linux in general has a shallow include/
> tree, so I think putting them in include/kvm/ is good.
> 
> Is there any precedent for naming stuff that is common to arm and
> aarch64?  

So far, we have:
- include/linux/irqchip/arm-gic.h
- include/clocksource/arm_arch_timer.h

So the trend seems to use "arm" as a prefix, and I will rename the files
to match this convention (which you actually suggested in your other email).

> I think to 99% of the world they will both be "arm", but of
> course the remaining 1% is likely over-represented among KVM-ARM
> maintainers. :)

Who? What? ;-)

Do you have any comment about patch 2/2? It is a bit more invasive, but
it is a cleanup in my opinion.

Thanks for the feedback,

	M.
-- 
Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...