From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Marc Zyngier Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] ARM: KVM: move GIC/timer code to a common location Date: Fri, 10 May 2013 09:46:29 +0100 Message-ID: <518CB3E5.7090504@arm.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> <518CABBB.7050909@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Cc: Christoffer Dall , Catalin Marinas , "kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu" , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , "kvm@vger.kernel.org" , "gleb@redhat.com" To: Paolo Bonzini Return-path: Received: from service87.mimecast.com ([91.220.42.44]:37159 "EHLO service87.mimecast.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752204Ab3EJIqd convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 May 2013 04:46:33 -0400 In-Reply-To: <518CABBB.7050909@redhat.com> Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 10/05/13 09:11, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > 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? So far, we have: - include/linux/irqchip/arm-gic.h - include/clocksource/arm_arch_timer.h So the trend seems to use "arm" as a prefix, and I will rename the files to match this convention (which you actually suggested in your other email). > 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. :) Who? What? ;-) Do you have any comment about patch 2/2? It is a bit more invasive, but it is a cleanup in my opinion. Thanks for the feedback, M. -- Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny... From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: marc.zyngier@arm.com (Marc Zyngier) Date: Fri, 10 May 2013 09:46:29 +0100 Subject: [RFC PATCH 1/2] ARM: KVM: move GIC/timer code to a common location In-Reply-To: <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> <518CABBB.7050909@redhat.com> Message-ID: <518CB3E5.7090504@arm.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 10/05/13 09:11, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > 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? So far, we have: - include/linux/irqchip/arm-gic.h - include/clocksource/arm_arch_timer.h So the trend seems to use "arm" as a prefix, and I will rename the files to match this convention (which you actually suggested in your other email). > 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. :) Who? What? ;-) Do you have any comment about patch 2/2? It is a bit more invasive, but it is a cleanup in my opinion. Thanks for the feedback, M. -- Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...