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 12C00C433ED for ; Thu, 1 Apr 2021 15:33:14 +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 AF7DA61244 for ; Thu, 1 Apr 2021 15:33:13 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org AF7DA61244 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=xen.org 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.104625.200341 (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1lRzJg-00045F-Lu; Thu, 01 Apr 2021 15:33:04 +0000 X-Outflank-Mailman: Message body and most headers restored to incoming version Received: by outflank-mailman (output) from mailman id 104625.200341; Thu, 01 Apr 2021 15:33:04 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.xenproject.org) by lists.xenproject.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1lRzJg-000458-HS; Thu, 01 Apr 2021 15:33:04 +0000 Received: by outflank-mailman (input) for mailman id 104625; Thu, 01 Apr 2021 15:33:02 +0000 Received: from mail.xenproject.org ([104.130.215.37]) by lists.xenproject.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1lRzJe-000453-Gx for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Thu, 01 Apr 2021 15:33:02 +0000 Received: from xenbits.xenproject.org ([104.239.192.120]) by mail.xenproject.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1lRzJc-0000Ol-OI; Thu, 01 Apr 2021 15:33:00 +0000 Received: from 54-240-197-239.amazon.com ([54.240.197.239] helo=a483e7b01a66.ant.amazon.com) by xenbits.xenproject.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1lRzJc-0006CF-G6; Thu, 01 Apr 2021 15:33:00 +0000 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" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=xen.org; s=20200302mail; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:In-Reply-To: MIME-Version:Date:Message-ID:From:References:Cc:To:Subject; bh=4t09i6lJcaCeOqAFZogMPxgcn8hcZFRDYFfERFzoBiQ=; b=ZnqWjMdJOa/dPvy8ApezXvsCP6 fj9M7DibZQYRIX/WoivaGhYcBCKs7XkbdLjAVtQuq8vp3iJGrHPAAs7UBJKXAs5WPceDWEuhvDuzp 9ipmx6Ip+wrvmGyoUym+nhmlbCEXm8Ocj9ggX2GII3uPBmuBmoFtp8AIs9cNYWfDFS8o=; Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/23] further population of xen/lib/ To: Jan Beulich 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> <0d763d3a-6fcd-dd5c-803d-a52876a54f6c@suse.com> From: Julien Grall Message-ID: <6eb1614d-fc16-9101-201d-9f63c2adcae7@xen.org> Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2021 16:32:58 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.8.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <0d763d3a-6fcd-dd5c-803d-a52876a54f6c@suse.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-GB Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 01/04/2021 16:25, Jan Beulich wrote: > 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? It will be good for me. Cheers, > > Jan > -- Julien Grall