Re: [RFC] Proposed new directory layout for kvm and virtualization

[Sam Ravnborg <sam@ravnborg.org>]

On Tue, Dec 11, 2007 at 06:15:40PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
> Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> >On Tue, Dec 11, 2007 at 11:47:39AM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
> >  
> >>KVM is due to receive support for multiple architectures (ppc, ia64, and 
> >>s390, in addition to the existing x86), hopefully in time for the 2.6.25 
> >>merge window.  It is awkward to place the new arch support in 
> >>drivers/kvm/, so I'd like to propose the following new layout:
> >>
> >> virt/         top-level directory for hypervisors
> >> virt/kvm/     kvm common code
> >> virt/lguest/  the other hypervisor
> >> arch/*/kvm/   arch dependent kvm code
> >>    
> >
> >The arch/*/dir shall use same dir-name as used
> >in top-level directory.
> >  
> 
> Well, it isn't like that now (arch/x86/oprofile, etc.)
oprofile is now the best leader to follow in this respect.
Just look at the utterly crap in their makefiles.

> >So use arch/*/virt/kvm/ if kvm really requires
> >a subdirectory of it own. Preferably not.
> >A handful of files named kvm* does not warrant their own
> >subdirectory IMO.
> >
> >  
> 
> We'll have 5-6 x86 specific files.
> 
> Where do you suggest we place them?
/arch/x86/virt/

Seems logical and fit the way we handle mm/ versus arch/*/mm,
kernel/ arch/*/kernel etc.

Are there any dependencies between the arch and non-arch files
such as they are combined in a single module?

	Sam
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/