Re: [PATCH] p2m: split mem_access into separate files

[Tamas K Lengyel <tamas.lengyel@zentific.com>]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1528 bytes --]

On Dec 12, 2016 00:08, "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@suse.com> wrote:

>>> On 09.12.16 at 19:38, <tamas.lengyel@zentific.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 2:27 AM, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 08.12.16 at 23:57, <tamas.lengyel@zentific.com> wrote:
>>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/mm/Makefile
>>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/mm/Makefile
>>> @@ -9,6 +9,7 @@ obj-y += guest_walk_3.o
>>>  obj-y += guest_walk_4.o
>>>  obj-y += mem_paging.o
>>>  obj-y += mem_sharing.o
>>> +obj-y += mem_access.o
>>
>> Please honor prior (mostly?) alphabetical ordering.
>
> I don't think there is any alphabetical ordering here. The list begins
> with paging.o then goes to altp2m.o and then to guest_walk_2.o.. IMHO
> sorting the list is something that should be done in a separate patch.

Hence my "(partly?)" - the patch context alone tells that you could
at least not make things worse.


I think this is one of those changes that I would rather not submit a new
version for unless something else comes up as well.


>> Otherwise this all looks like pure code motion (except for the
>> adjustments described), but it would be nice if you could
>> clarify that's indeed (intended to be) the case.
>
> I do say in the commit message this is mechanical code motion: "There
> are no code-changes introduced, the patch is mechanical code
> movement."

Oh, I'm sorry - I'm sure I've looked over the description a 2nd
time before making the comment, but I still must have skipped
that last sentence in the first paragraph.


No problem ;)

Thanks,
Tamas

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 2744 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 127 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel