[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 for 2.5 0/3] Move target- and device specific

From: Denis V. Lunev
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 for 2.5 0/3] Move target- and device specific code from monitor
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2015 16:50:35 -0700
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.8.0

On 08/12/2015 04:50 AM, Denis V. Lunev wrote:
The monivation of this set is simple. Recently we have proposed patch
to monitor.c with specific x86 APIC HMP commands. The patchset was denied
with the main motivation "No more arch specific code in monitor.c"
This patchset is the first step to move arch specific code from
monitor.c targets.

So, monitor.c already contains a lot of generic code, as well as the target
specifics code and eventually monitor.c volume will only grow. This trend leads
to a variety of fouling code ifdeffery(and combinations thereof),
poor readability, and entanglement of architecture of the project.
If someone wants to improve processing logic commands at the monitor,
it isn't necessarily must differentiate amongst the implementation of some ARM
or x86_64 specific commands, because the project already has separation of
target specific code on directories.

The presented solution is not the best, but it is quite simple
(PATCH doesn't add more code!) and decides the above mentioned issue.
Subsequently it will not prevent the introduction of more advanced mechanism
that can more effectively resolve the issue.

There is a issue with the placement of code for multiple architectures
(isn't for everyone), but this code is very small. This patch is a step towards
solving the issue associated with maintaining the purity of the code and
structure of the project, which solves not all, but doing a little better
than it is.

Changes from v1:
- ported to new head

Signed-off-by: Pavel Butsykin <address@hidden>
Signed-off-by: Denis V. Lunev <address@hidden>
CC: Luiz Capitulino <address@hidden>
CC: Paolo Bonzini <address@hidden>
CC: Peter Maydell <address@hidden>

ping as per verbal discussion

this stuff is intrusive and become rotten very soon.
Can we at least discuss it at least to come into
agreement about the approach.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]