Jean-Yves Migeon <jeanyves.mig...@free.fr> wrote: > > > > I know that a lot of legacy code uses the preprocessor the way that you > > have in i386_cpu_switch_pmap(), but I don't think that the preprocessor > > should be used in that way any longer. In my experience, code that uses > > the preprocessor heavily is harder to read and to change and to test. > > Why don't you let config(1) and ld(1) do the work that the preprocessor > > does? For example: > >[snip] > > I like that. Will do. Thanks!
Agree with David's point, but it should not be done at function level. Rather higher level interface abstraction. In uvmplock branch, I have already split some x86 pmap bits into pmap_tlb.c and xen_pmap.c modules. More interfaces can be abstracted in respect to e.g. Xen. -- Mindaugas