From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.3 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, NICE_REPLY_A,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E4250C433ED for ; Thu, 1 Apr 2021 15:26:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.xenproject.org (lists.xenproject.org [192.237.175.120]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7ADED61365 for ; Thu, 1 Apr 2021 15:26:14 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 7ADED61365 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=suse.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=xen-devel-bounces@lists.xenproject.org Received: from list by lists.xenproject.org with outflank-mailman.104614.200305 (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1lRzCk-0002vw-6P; Thu, 01 Apr 2021 15:25:54 +0000 X-Outflank-Mailman: Message body and most headers restored to incoming version Received: by outflank-mailman (output) from mailman id 104614.200305; Thu, 01 Apr 2021 15:25:54 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.xenproject.org) by lists.xenproject.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1lRzCk-0002vp-3D; Thu, 01 Apr 2021 15:25:54 +0000 Received: by outflank-mailman (input) for mailman id 104614; Thu, 01 Apr 2021 15:25:52 +0000 Received: from all-amaz-eas1.inumbo.com ([34.197.232.57] helo=us1-amaz-eas2.inumbo.com) by lists.xenproject.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1lRzCi-0002vk-RM for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Thu, 01 Apr 2021 15:25:52 +0000 Received: from mx2.suse.de (unknown [195.135.220.15]) by us1-amaz-eas2.inumbo.com (Halon) with ESMTPS id 76727bc8-721c-4e13-8dbc-ad572b8c1aea; Thu, 01 Apr 2021 15:25:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: from relay2.suse.de (unknown [195.135.221.27]) by mx2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id E7607B134; Thu, 1 Apr 2021 15:25:50 +0000 (UTC) X-BeenThere: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org List-Id: Xen developer discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xenproject.org Precedence: list Sender: "Xen-devel" X-Inumbo-ID: 76727bc8-721c-4e13-8dbc-ad572b8c1aea X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at test-mx.suse.de DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.com; s=susede1; t=1617290751; h=from:from:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc: mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=cp8sJcc8VSQACwUA1v0L+jPn8fTDIgBPDFPOf0zdSG4=; b=EjMIx5tcO/hGjiPHTWLu79UfAk7NBf62yDZaC/TXWshu7k6hnnhrCmMT9G3dP4L97ZH8mO xG91bJQx/6LACsBHla2mqSsXU5pETSmC5i7PALkKQNFIsLUp2EiHIzudKEV3Y6euBTZruS pgxmZ0B7NZkd6Sm9aroRxW1NBm8MpxA= Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/23] further population of xen/lib/ To: Julien Grall Cc: Andrew Cooper , George Dunlap , Ian Jackson , Stefano Stabellini , Wei Liu , "xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org" References: <27916fa0-9ebd-a49a-bbb9-1ef47c2b5bf6@xen.org> <4f745d03-baa8-e9e6-692c-f9c9f401b766@suse.com> <6a38f0db-938b-fd13-48e6-6b538c85fe42@xen.org> <3bdbd0ba-ce7d-3814-3280-c4f628b74d93@xen.org> From: Jan Beulich Message-ID: <0d763d3a-6fcd-dd5c-803d-a52876a54f6c@suse.com> Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2021 17:25:50 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.9.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <3bdbd0ba-ce7d-3814-3280-c4f628b74d93@xen.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 01.04.2021 16:55, Julien Grall wrote: > > > 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. I'll add "Allow the function to be individually linkable, discardable, and overridable." to all the str*() and mem*() patch descriptions. Is that going to be good enough? Jan