On 16.01.2012, at 16:38, Avi Kivity wrote: > On 01/16/2012 05:35 PM, Alexander Graf wrote: >> On 16.01.2012, at 15:50, Avi Kivity wrote: >> >>> On 01/16/2012 04:05 PM, Alexander Graf wrote: >>>>> >>>>> But the emulation itself would be pretty pointless to split up ... >>>> >>>> You could add the header in a separate first patch :) >>>> >>>> >>> >>> That makes reviewing harder, not easier. >> >> Oh, really? > > That's my opinion. The headers and the code don't make sense without > each other. > >> It's basically just a copy from Linux, so it shouldn't need all the review >> the actual emulation code needs, no? > > So just skip it. Dividing things into patches helps when you > disentangle multiple logical changes. If the multiple changes just > follow each other in the diff, splitting doesn't change anything.
Hrm. I tend to postpone reviews of patches that appear too long. And at the point in time where I decide that it is too long I don't check if maybe the long part is a header file :). Oh well, isn't it great how everyone is different? Alex
