On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 10:00:20AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 22.09.17 at 17:56, <wei.l...@citrix.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 09:44:53AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >> >>> On 14.09.17 at 14:58, <wei.l...@citrix.com> wrote:
> >> > They will be used by PV mm code and mm hypercall code, which is going
> >> > to be split into two files.
> >>
> >> Hmm, no, I think I'd prefer mod_lN_entry() and
> >> {get,put}_page_from_lNe() to stay in the same file (with the
> >> possible exception of {get,put}_page_from_l1e(), as under
> >> discussion elsewhere).
> >>
> >
> > Seeing that mod_lN_entry's are only used by PV hypercall code I opted to
> > split them to mm-hypercalls.c in later file.
> >
> > Now you want to put {get,put}_page_from_lNe and mod_lN_entry in the same
> > file, there are two choices:
> >
> > 1. Merge mm-hypercalls.c into pv/mm.c.
> > 2. Leave mod_*_entry in pv/mm.c and keep mm-hypercalls.c -- this would
> > require exporting mod_*_entry via local header file.
> >
> > Which one do you prefer?
>
> I think I'd prefer 1 over 2, but please give Andrew a chance to
> voice his opinion too.
>
Definitely.
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
