Re: [XEN PATCH v6 06/31] x86/mm: avoid building multiple .o from a single .c file

[Anthony PERARD <anthony.perard@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, Jul 07, 2021 at 04:45:11PM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 01.07.2021 16:09, Anthony PERARD wrote:
> >  xen/Makefile                            | 11 -----------
> >  xen/Rules.mk                            |  2 +-
> >  xen/arch/x86/mm/Makefile                |  9 ---------
> >  xen/arch/x86/mm/guest_walk.c            |  3 ---
> >  xen/arch/x86/mm/guest_walk_2.c          |  2 ++
> >  xen/arch/x86/mm/guest_walk_3.c          |  2 ++
> >  xen/arch/x86/mm/guest_walk_4.c          |  2 ++
> >  xen/arch/x86/mm/hap/Makefile            |  9 ---------
> >  xen/arch/x86/mm/hap/guest_walk.c        |  3 ---
> >  xen/arch/x86/mm/hap/guest_walk_2level.c |  2 ++
> >  xen/arch/x86/mm/hap/guest_walk_3level.c |  2 ++
> >  xen/arch/x86/mm/hap/guest_walk_4level.c |  2 ++
> 
> Is there a particular reason you've kept the "level" in these three
> file names? Preferably with them shortened (and ideally dashes used
> everywhere in the new file names instead of underscores)

I had no reason to rename them. (Also, renaming them makes the patch
bigger ;-) as we would rename the objects files.)

But I can rename as part of the patch. Should I rename all of them (mm
hap and shadow) to "guest-walk-$level.c" ? Or just "guest-$level.c" like
in shadow/ ? On the other hand, it would probably be helpful to have the same
basename for both the source and the .c that includes the source (e.g.
"guest_walk.c" and "guest_walk_2.c" have "guest_walk" in common). So if
we were to replace underscores by dashes, we should probably rename
"guest_walk.c" to "guest-walk.c" as well.

So I'll remove the "level" from the filenames in hap/ to start with in
an update to this patch, it it worth it to do more that that?

> Reviewed-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>

Thanks,

-- 
Anthony PERARD