Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC PATCH 00/11] Stubs cleanup

[Paolo Bonzini]

On 22/12/2016 18:42, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 22, 2016 at 06:32:24PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 22/12/2016 18:30, Peter Maydell wrote:
>>> On 22 December 2016 at 15:59, Paolo Bonzini <address@hidden> wrote:
>>>> This moves out of libqemustub.a those functions which can be handled
>>>> simply by $(call lnot), like we already do for pci-stub.c or kvm-stub.c.
>>>> libqemustub.a keep the more complex cases where a small part of the
>>>> executables we build needs an implementation of a small subset of an API.
>>>
>>> So why is doing it this way round better? (I don't have a strong
>>> opinion here, but you don't really give a rationale for this change.)
>>
>> I don't really have a strong opinion here either, hence the RFC.
>> However, one advantage is that it keeps things visible to the right
>> maintainer.
> 
> Can't we just move the files to subdirectories where they are
> visible to the maintainers, but keep using stub-obj-y/libqemustub
> to build/link them?
> 
> I find libqemustub/stub-obj-y much easier to use than manually
> setting obj-$(call lnot ...).

Yes, that would work too.  It's a pity that we cannot just use weak
symbols, as that would work fine with obj-y.

It would be a bit ugly to have to add "stub-obj-y += foo/" in the parent
directory.  But maybe we can replace that with a "subdir-y += foo/" and
just do a single recursion for all variables.  Fam, you did the current
implementation of unnest-vars, what do you think?  Would it also be simpler?

Paolo