Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH RFC 3/5] x86: split PV dom0 builder to domain_build_pv.c

[Wei Liu <wei.liu2@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, Mar 03, 2017 at 02:49:29PM +0000, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 03/03/17 14:45, Wei Liu wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 03, 2017 at 07:33:35AM -0700, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>>>> On 03.03.17 at 14:35, <wei.liu2@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>> On Fri, Mar 03, 2017 at 04:15:19AM -0700, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>>>>>> On 03.03.17 at 12:06, <roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>>> On Fri, Mar 03, 2017 at 09:41:09AM +0000, Wei Liu wrote:
> >>>> However, with ...
> >>>>
> >>>>>> diff --git a/xen/arch/x86/domain_build_pv.c 
> >>>>>> b/xen/arch/x86/domain_build_pv.c
> >>>>> I would place this in arch/xen/x86/pv/domain_build.c
> >>>> ... this the case becomes less clear: Personally I'm not a fan of
> >>>> #include "../file.h", so I wouldn't be certain which of the two is
> >>>> the less undesirable place for the header.
> >>>>
> >>> But in this case I would prefer to move the to xen/include/xen and named
> >>> in dom0_build.h.
> >> Well, it's x86_specific, so if anything include/asm-x86/.
> >>
> 
> On a related tangent, I'd like to clean up our include hierachy, in the
> same way Linux has.
> 
> I.e.
> 
> move include/asm-x86/ to arch/x86/include/asm
> 
> and include/asm-arm/ to arch/arm/include/asm
> 
> which allows for the removal of all symlink games, which get in the way
> of tools like cscope/tags.
> 
> Are people amenable to this?  (I seem to recall asking before, and it
> not being objected to).
> 

+0 from me. Avoiding symlink game is good, but the current system isn't
really broken either.

Wei.


> ~Andrew

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