Hi Grygorii,
Grygorii Strashko <grygorii_stras...@epam.com> writes: > On 27.08.25 03:22, Volodymyr Babchuk wrote: >> Hi, >> Grygorii Strashko <grygorii_stras...@epam.com> writes: >> >>> From: Grygorii Strashko <grygorii_stras...@epam.com> >>> >>> Split set_domain_type() between Arm64/Arm32 sub-arches as >>> set_domain_type() implementation is going to be extended for Arm64. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Grygorii Strashko <grygorii_stras...@epam.com> >>> --- >>> v2: >>> - no changes, rebase >>> >>> xen/arch/arm/arm32/Makefile | 1 + >>> xen/arch/arm/arm32/domain-build.c | 22 ++++++++++++++++++++++ >>> xen/arch/arm/arm64/Makefile | 1 + >>> xen/arch/arm/arm64/domain-build.c | 24 ++++++++++++++++++++++++ >>> xen/arch/arm/dom0less-build.c | 14 -------------- >>> xen/include/xen/dom0less-build.h | 8 ++++++++ >>> 6 files changed, 56 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) >>> create mode 100644 xen/arch/arm/arm32/domain-build.c >>> create mode 100644 xen/arch/arm/arm64/domain-build.c >> Is it really worth to create two more source files just for one >> function? Maybe it is better to use already existing >> xen/arch/arm/arm*/domain.c ? > > It seems a common approach used for splitting ARM subarch code. > code from arch/arm/A.c goes in > -> arch/arm/arm32/A.c > -> arch/arm/arm64/A.c > (just "-" is used vs "_") Yeah, my point was that both arch/arm/arm32/domain.c and arch/arm/arm64/domain.c already exists, so you don't have to create a new files. But this is up to you, actually. I'll be fine with either approach, just wanted to mentioned that there is another way. [...] -- WBR, Volodymyr
