From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Paolo Bonzini Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] ARM: KVM: move GIC/timer code to a common location Date: Fri, 10 May 2013 10:11:39 +0200 Message-ID: <518CABBB.7050909@redhat.com> References: <1367589773-5609-1-git-send-email-marc.zyngier@arm.com> <1367589773-5609-2-git-send-email-marc.zyngier@arm.com> <20130509181101.GA17253@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Christoffer Dall , catalin.marinas@arm.com, kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org, gleb@redhat.com To: Marc Zyngier Return-path: Received: from mail-gh0-f173.google.com ([209.85.160.173]:65197 "EHLO mail-gh0-f173.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751519Ab3EJILq (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 May 2013 04:11:46 -0400 Received: by mail-gh0-f173.google.com with SMTP id g16so825101ghb.4 for ; Fri, 10 May 2013 01:11:46 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Il 10/05/2013 09:23, Marc Zyngier ha scritto: >> > 1. Should we have a namespace per arch in the include directory, as in >> > include/kvm/arm? > So I thought of that at one point, but discarded the idea because it seems > to convey the wrong message: > We're moving the include files because they are architecture independent, > and referring to an architecture name in the path feels a bit odd. Or maybe > arm-common? As I wrote in the other message, Linux in general has a shallow include/ tree, so I think putting them in include/kvm/ is good. Is there any precedent for naming stuff that is common to arm and aarch64? I think to 99% of the world they will both be "arm", but of course the remaining 1% is likely over-represented among KVM-ARM maintainers. :) Paolo From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: pbonzini@redhat.com (Paolo Bonzini) Date: Fri, 10 May 2013 10:11:39 +0200 Subject: [RFC PATCH 1/2] ARM: KVM: move GIC/timer code to a common location In-Reply-To: References: <1367589773-5609-1-git-send-email-marc.zyngier@arm.com> <1367589773-5609-2-git-send-email-marc.zyngier@arm.com> <20130509181101.GA17253@gmail.com> Message-ID: <518CABBB.7050909@redhat.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Il 10/05/2013 09:23, Marc Zyngier ha scritto: >> > 1. Should we have a namespace per arch in the include directory, as in >> > include/kvm/arm? > So I thought of that at one point, but discarded the idea because it seems > to convey the wrong message: > We're moving the include files because they are architecture independent, > and referring to an architecture name in the path feels a bit odd. Or maybe > arm-common? As I wrote in the other message, Linux in general has a shallow include/ tree, so I think putting them in include/kvm/ is good. Is there any precedent for naming stuff that is common to arm and aarch64? I think to 99% of the world they will both be "arm", but of course the remaining 1% is likely over-represented among KVM-ARM maintainers. :) Paolo