On 12.07.2021 14:49, Anthony PERARD wrote: > On Wed, Jul 07, 2021 at 04:45:11PM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote: >> On 01.07.2021 16:09, Anthony PERARD wrote: >>> xen/Makefile | 11 ----------- >>> xen/Rules.mk | 2 +- >>> xen/arch/x86/mm/Makefile | 9 --------- >>> xen/arch/x86/mm/guest_walk.c | 3 --- >>> xen/arch/x86/mm/guest_walk_2.c | 2 ++ >>> xen/arch/x86/mm/guest_walk_3.c | 2 ++ >>> xen/arch/x86/mm/guest_walk_4.c | 2 ++ >>> xen/arch/x86/mm/hap/Makefile | 9 --------- >>> xen/arch/x86/mm/hap/guest_walk.c | 3 --- >>> xen/arch/x86/mm/hap/guest_walk_2level.c | 2 ++ >>> xen/arch/x86/mm/hap/guest_walk_3level.c | 2 ++ >>> xen/arch/x86/mm/hap/guest_walk_4level.c | 2 ++ >> >> Is there a particular reason you've kept the "level" in these three >> file names? Preferably with them shortened (and ideally dashes used >> everywhere in the new file names instead of underscores) > > I had no reason to rename them. (Also, renaming them makes the patch > bigger ;-) as we would rename the objects files.) > > But I can rename as part of the patch. Should I rename all of them (mm > hap and shadow) to "guest-walk-$level.c" ? Or just "guest-$level.c" like > in shadow/ ? On the other hand, it would probably be helpful to have the same > basename for both the source and the .c that includes the source (e.g. > "guest_walk.c" and "guest_walk_2.c" have "guest_walk" in common). So if > we were to replace underscores by dashes, we should probably rename > "guest_walk.c" to "guest-walk.c" as well. > > So I'll remove the "level" from the filenames in hap/ to start with in > an update to this patch, it it worth it to do more that that?
I'd be okay with just the removal of "level"; switching to dashes would be nice imo, but I can see this being controversial - as you say, names would go slightly out of sync, and whether renaming the base files is warranted is hard to say. I'd be personally in favor, but I can see why people may prefer not to have those extra renames in here. Jan
