Re: [PATCH v1 02/12] xen/hvmlite: Factor out common kernel init code

[Boris Ostrovsky]

On 01/22/2016 06:12 PM, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
> On 01/22/2016 06:01 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 04:35:48PM -0500, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
> > > HVMlite guests (to be introduced in subsequent patches) share most
> > > of the kernel initialization code with PV(H).
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > >   arch/x86/xen/enlighten.c |  225 
> > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++----------------------
> > >   1 files changed, 119 insertions(+), 106 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/arch/x86/xen/enlighten.c b/arch/x86/xen/enlighten.c
> > > index d09e4c9..2cf446a 100644
> > > --- a/arch/x86/xen/enlighten.c
> > > +++ b/arch/x86/xen/enlighten.c
> > Whoa, I'm lost, its hard for me to tell what exactly stayed and what
> > got pulled into a helper, etc. Is there a possibility to split this
> > patch in 2 somehow to make the actual functional changes easier to
> > read? There are too many changes here and I just can't tell easily
> > what's going on.
>
>
> The only real changes that this patch introduces is it reorders some 
> of the operations that used to be in xen_start_kernel(). This is done 
> so that in the next patch when we add hvmlite we can easily put those 
> specific to PV(H) inside 'if (!xen_hvm_domain())'. I probably should 
> have said so in the commit message.


Actually, I forgot that I merged the 'if' clause into this patch already 
so I'll see if I can separate them again to make it easier on the eye.

-boris


> It is indeed difficult to review but I don't see how I can split this. 
> Even if I just moved it (without reordering) it would still be hard to 
> read.
>
> -boris