Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v5 18/23] x86/mm: export some stuff via local mm.h

[Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On 22/09/17 17:07, Wei Liu wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 10:00:20AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > > > > On 22.09.17 at 17:56, <wei.liu2@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 09:44:53AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > > > > > > On 14.09.17 at 14:58, <wei.liu2@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > They will be used by PV mm code and mm hypercall code, which is going
> > > > > to be split into two files.
> > > > Hmm, no, I think I'd prefer mod_lN_entry() and
> > > > {get,put}_page_from_lNe() to stay in the same file (with the
> > > > possible exception of {get,put}_page_from_l1e(), as under
> > > > discussion elsewhere).
> > > Seeing that mod_lN_entry's are only used by PV hypercall code I opted to
> > > split them to mm-hypercalls.c in later file.
> > >
> > > Now you want to put {get,put}_page_from_lNe and mod_lN_entry in the same
> > > file, there are two choices:
> > >
> > > 1. Merge mm-hypercalls.c into pv/mm.c.
> > > 2. Leave mod_*_entry in pv/mm.c and keep mm-hypercalls.c -- this would
> > >     require exporting mod_*_entry via local header file.
> > >
> > > Which one do you prefer?
> > I think I'd prefer 1 over 2, but please give Andrew a chance to
> > voice his opinion too.
> Definitely.
I'd err on the side of 1) over 2) in this case.  I think it is more 
important to not have these functions exported, than to minimize the 
size of each translation unit.
~Andrew

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