Re: [PATCH 00/23] further population of xen/lib/

[Julien Grall <julien@xxxxxxx>]

On 01/04/2021 15:27, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 01.04.2021 16:04, Julien Grall wrote: >> So overall, the number of functions 
> requiring overriding will likely be
> > pretty limited and #ifdef would be IMHO tolerable.
> >
> > Although, I would be OK with creating a file per function that are
> > already overrided. For all the others, I think this is just pointless.
> Well, I don't see a reason to special case individual functions.
> Plus any reasonable static library should imo have one (global)
> function per object file in the normal case; there may be very
> few exceptions. Drawing an ad hoc boundary at what currently has
> an override somewhere doesn't look very attractive to me. Plus
> to be honest while I would find it unfair to ask to further
> split things if I did just a partial conversion (i.e. invest yet
> more time), I find it rather odd to be asked to undo some of the
> splitting when I've already taken the extra time to make things
> consistent.
I am sure each of us spent time working on a solution that some 
reviewers were not necessary convinced of the usefulness and they had to 
undo the series...
In this case, you sent a large series with close to 0 commit message + a 
small cover letter. So I think it is fair for a reviewer to be 
unconvinced and ask for more input.
You provided that now, I think we want a short summary (or a link to the 
conversation) in each commit message.
This will be helpful to understand why the move was made without having 
to spend ages finding the original discussion.
Cheers,

--
Julien Grall