Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 1/7] arm: move arch/arm/hvm.c to arch/arm/hvm/hvm.c

["Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

>>> On 09.02.16 at 12:28, <czuzu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 2/9/2016 1:03 PM, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
>> On Mon, 8 Feb 2016, Corneliu ZUZU wrote:
>>> X86-side hvm.c is @ arch/x86/hvm/hvm.c. To maintain arm<->x86 symmetry,
>>> also move arch/arm/hvm.c to arch/arm/hvm/hvm.c.
>> Why are we doing this? These are not header files, their paths don't
>> necessarily need to be the same and xen/arch/x86/hvm/hvm.c is very
>> different from xen/arch/arm/hvm.c.
>>
>> Please state the reason more clearly.
>>
>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Corneliu ZUZU <czuzu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> ---
>>>   xen/arch/arm/Makefile     |  2 +-
>>>   xen/arch/arm/hvm.c        | 67 
>>> -----------------------------------------------
>>>   xen/arch/arm/hvm/Makefile |  1 +
>>>   xen/arch/arm/hvm/hvm.c    | 66 
>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>
> 
> Because the ARM side hvm.c currently exists solely to add an implementation 
> for
> do_hvm_op, which on x86 is @ arch/x86/hvm/hvm.c. I presume the ARM hvm.c got 
> its name
> from the X86 file, so I thought a symmetry between the two was intended from 
> the start.
> Also, the hvm directory was created to separate hvm-specific code, which is 
> the case w/
> do_hvm_op on any arch.

While I'm not an ARM maintainer, this change still strikes me as odd
(or a change for the change's sake). A directory with just one file
in it (and - afaict - no current perspective to gain more) is just
pointless. In fact it's usually the other way around: When a file
grows (or would grow) too large, a similarly named subdirectory
gets introduced with the contents "scattered" across multiple files
in that directory.

Jan


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