On Mon, 12 Aug 2024 at 23:18, Danny Canter <danny_can...@apple.com> wrote: > On Aug 12, 2024, at 10:52 AM, Peter Maydell <peter.mayd...@linaro.org> wrote: > > This is unfortunately probably going to imply a bit of extra > > plumbing to be implemented for hvf -- that MachineClass::kvm_type > > method is (as the name suggests) KVM specific. (Multi-patch > > patchset for that, where we add the plumbing in as its own > > separate patch (and/or whatever other split of functionality > > into coherent chunks makes sense), rather than one-big-patch, please.) > > That’s perfectly fine, I’ll try and see how the plumbing was done > for KVM and try and emulate where it makes sense > for HVF. Agree though, that’d definitely push this into multi-patch > territory. Curious if you think what’s here today should > be multiple patches or the current work seems fine in one?
I think it was fine as one patch. My personal preference when I write code tends to go for more-smaller-patches over fewer-larger-patches, so I might have for example split out "Add hvf_arch_vm_create()" into its own patch, but that's very borderline, and I wouldn't ask for that change at code review time unless the patch as a whole was too big and unwieldy and I was looking for places to suggest a split into multiple patches. -- PMM
