From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] first cut at splitting up paravirt_ops Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2007 23:40:49 -0700 Message-ID: <469329F1.4080505@goop.org> References: <4692D076.6060204@goop.org> <4692D871.60002@vmware.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <4692D871.60002@vmware.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: virtualization-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org Errors-To: virtualization-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org To: Zachary Amsden Cc: Chris Wright , Virtualization Mailing List List-Id: virtualization@lists.linuxfoundation.org Zachary Amsden wrote: > Well, I think they are pretty good, but for the init group of ops, it > seems it would be clearer conceptually to group pagetable setup with > the MMU hooks and time init with the time operations. Otherwise, the > init group gets very jumbled as we pull in new interfaces (APIC has > BSP and AP init functions, for example). I tend to agree, but the main reason I grouped them is because they're init code, and therefore need never be exported. Also, some are really just used at boot time, and don't clearly fit into any other grouping. I guess I could expand pv_misc_ops. > I think that is probably the best solution; splitting the patch code > to deal with individual structure seems awkward. Yes. The only downside is that moving an op between groups requires quite a few places to be touched. At least its all compile-time checked. J