From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:44788) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cK7CS-0001yP-Lj for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 22 Dec 2016 12:30:41 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cK7CR-0004Ip-5V for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 22 Dec 2016 12:30:40 -0500 Received: from mail-ua0-x231.google.com ([2607:f8b0:400c:c08::231]:35189) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cK7CQ-0004II-Tv for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 22 Dec 2016 12:30:39 -0500 Received: by mail-ua0-x231.google.com with SMTP id 2so113533046uax.2 for ; Thu, 22 Dec 2016 09:30:38 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20161222155915.7232-1-pbonzini@redhat.com> References: <20161222155915.7232-1-pbonzini@redhat.com> From: Peter Maydell Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2016 17:30:17 +0000 Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC PATCH 00/11] Stubs cleanup List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Paolo Bonzini Cc: QEMU Developers , Eduardo Habkost On 22 December 2016 at 15:59, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > This moves out of libqemustub.a those functions which can be handled > simply by $(call lnot), like we already do for pci-stub.c or kvm-stub.c. > libqemustub.a keep the more complex cases where a small part of the > executables we build needs an implementation of a small subset of an API. So why is doing it this way round better? (I don't have a strong opinion here, but you don't really give a rationale for this change.) thanks -- PMM