[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2 05/15] xen/arm: segregate GIC low level functionality
Hi Julien & Ian, On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 10:37 PM, Julien Grall <julien.grall@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 04/09/2014 06:00 PM, Ian Campbell wrote: >> On Fri, 2014-04-04 at 14:55 +0100, Julien Grall wrote: >>> Hi Vijaya, >>> >>> Thank you for the patch. >>> >>> On 04/04/2014 12:56 PM, vijay.kilari@xxxxxxxxx wrote: >>>> From: Vijaya Kumar K <Vijaya.Kumar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>>> >>>> GIC low level functionality is segregated into >>>> separate functions and are called using registered >>>> callback wherever required. >>>> >>>> This helps to separate generic and hardware functionality >>>> later >>> >>> Honestly, your patch on V1 was far better to read. As you are nearly >>> modify every functions, you should directly move it to a new file (e.g >>> merge with patch #9). >> >> This is a tricky judgement call, if there is to be mass code motion it >> should be done strictly separately from any functional changes. If that >> can be done all at once in a way which is reviewable then fine, but if >> not then I would much rather err on the side of refactoring and then >> moving as two steps even if the interim version looks a bit odd. >> >> v1 of this patch certainly did mix the motion with functional changes >> and so separating things out was the correct thing to do. Perhaps the >> functional changes are now done elsewhere and it would be possible to >> revert to a single patch which moved blocks of code out into callbacks, >> but I wouldn't require it. > > IHMO, I think everything that is more than splitting the function in 2 > (e.g, prototype change, merging functions...) should not be part of this > patch. > > Keeping one patch (i'm not taking into account my previous comment) for > code movement and function splitting will avoid strange renaming that is > very confusing in this patch. > > If we keep two patch, perhaps the gicv2 callbacks should be prefix by > gicv2_... > Having 2 patches one for with code changes and other with pure code movement is fine. but first patch is always confusing to make this changes. I prefer to have single patch with changes and code movement as in V1 and this makes job simple and I think we should bear with this. > Regards, > > -- > Julien Grall _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |