>>> On 30.11.16 at 10:08, <yi.y....@linux.intel.com> wrote: > On 16-11-29 02:43:24, Jan Beulich wrote: >> >>> On 29.11.16 at 05:38, <yi.y....@linux.intel.com> wrote: >> > To make codes be better reviewable, I propose below three suggestions: >> > 1) I write a design document about refactor to make you more easily >> > understand the ideas. >> >> This is appreciated, but I don't think it's strictly necessary. Describing >> the new design (rather than the changes to the existing one) is what >> likely would be more useful (I'm sorry if I've misunderstood what you >> said, and you in fact had meant just this), which iirc you already have >> in patch 1. >> >> > 2) Replace the psr.c with a new file which discards all old codes so >> > that you do not need to consider old implementations which may cause >> > confusion. >> > 3) Discard the refactor codes. Just implement L2 CAT based on current >> > codes. Because L2 CAT does not have much difference with L3. >> >> I don't think introducing a new file is the ideal approach. I'd suggest >> to rip out the entire implementation in a first patch, leaving just >> empty functions to avoid breaking the build (i.e. perhaps mostly the >> ones used by domctl/sysctl, and maybe some init one). Then >> introduce new code, ideally of course not in one big patch, but >> broken up into logical pieces where possible (one such split would be >> that of course you don't need to re-implement domctl/sysctl handling >> in the same patch as everything else). >> > Thanks for your suggestion! Just want to confirm if my understanding is > right. So, you mean I can remove all old codes but keep the interfaces as > empty functions to make sure the build can pass. Then, implement whole > functionality step by step. Right?
Yes. Thanks, Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
