Re: [Xen-merge] i386 subarch

["Martin J. Bligh" <mbligh@xxxxxxxxxx>]

--Chris Wright <chrisw@xxxxxxxx> wrote (on Thursday, August 04, 2005 13:21:59 
-0700):

> * Martin J. Bligh (mbligh@xxxxxxxxxx) wrote:
>> > Much of the duplication is just how Xen has been developed.  The
>> > Makefiles show where there's pure dup, and the sparse tree shows you
>> > what's actually changed.
>> > 
>> >> So what do we want to do? Break it up by filename, and see if we
>> >> can get several people to clean up a few files each? Tis a fair 
>> >> amount of work to do. Will help if we can get the patch to as small
>> >> as possible, and show as little duplication as possible to miminize
>> >> ongoing maintainance for everyone (including, but not limited to
>> >> the Xen people).
>> > 
>> > I think that's the best way to go forward.  I'd like to get it to a
>> > point where the patch is minimal before we start breaking down the dups.
>> 
>> OK, I'll start whacking on some of those C files, and see if I can 
>> break them apart. Will take it down by function first, then we can
>> go finer-grained than that later, but functions should break the back
>> of it, I think.
> 
> The next snapshot should have basically only sparse tree files in
> mach-xen/.  Moving functions alone can get a bit messy because there's
> some dependency with the other subarches.  May be good enough for first
> pass to just get subarch with only spars files (at which point we could
> commit to Xen tree).  The further breakdown could then happen
> in-tree...at least that's my current thinking.

OK, I was thinking we could break up some of hte files in mainline we
wanted to override, and move those down into the subarch code. Then
merged that back (as a no-op) to Linus. Is that conflicting with what
you're doing, or not? can't quite parse the above ;-)

M.


_______________________________________________
Xen-merge mailing list
Xen-merge@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-merge