From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org>
Subject: Re: [patch 10/21] Xen-paravirt: Name: dont export
 paravirt_ops structure, do individual functions
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 17:16:12 -0800
Message-ID: <45D262DC.2020008@goop.org>
References: <20070213221729.772002682@goop.org>
	<20070213221830.238235953@goop.org> <45D260A2.4010200@vmware.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com>
In-Reply-To: <45D260A2.4010200@vmware.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-Help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com
Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com
To: Zachary Amsden <zach@vmware.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>, xen-devel@lists.xensource.com, virtualization@lists.osdl.org, Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Chris Wright <chrisw@sous-sol.org>, Andi Kleen <ak@muc.de>
List-Id: virtualization@lists.linuxfoundation.org

Zachary Amsden wrote:
> This turned out really hideous looking to me.  Can't we split the
> struct into GPL'd and non-GPL'd functions instead?  We still have the
> same granularity, and none of this function call to an indirect
> function call nonsense. 

It's not pretty, but I think having paravirt_ops and paravirt_ops_gpl
would be worse.  I'd be sympathetic to the idea of splitting
paravirt_ops up by function groupings, but splitting it by license seems
like a maintenance headache with no real upside.  Besides, patching will
solve everything (tm).

    J