[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH 18/27] xfs: split out xfs inode operations into separate file

To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 18/27] xfs: split out xfs inode operations into separate file
From: Ben Myers <bpm@xxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2013 13:14:11 -0500
Cc: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20130617155644.GA26043@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <1371032567-21772-1-git-send-email-david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1371032567-21772-19-git-send-email-david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20130612140519.GB28988@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20130613011414.GB29338@dastard> <20130613080009.GL29338@dastard> <20130617155644.GA26043@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
Hey Christoph,

On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 08:56:44AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 06:00:09PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > So what I really think needs to happen here first is similar to the
> > dir2 header file re-org. That is, a header file to define the
> > format, and a header file to define the in-kernel structures and
> > APIs....
> Yes, I think we need to do this rather sooner than later.  In fact
> I'd feeling we need to tackle the whole header mess first before
> splitting the .c files.  Making sure the on-disk format is in one
> or just a few headers is the most important bit of that.
> These days I'm actually of the opinion that we probably should be
> even more drastic about cutting the number of headers.  For the
> on disk format a xfs_format.h for all the regular on disk format and
> maybe and xfs_log_format.h should be more than enough.

I like the idea of having the entire on-disk format in just a few files.  It
would be a nice clean up.  I don't know if splitting the .c files needs to wait
on it though.

> But back to the _ops.c naming.  I really hate it and the best counter
> proposals I can come up with is to add a _common postfix to every file
> intended to be shared with userspace.

I don't understand what you don't like about the _ops.c naming... 

> Using a directly also would make
> sense, but for some reason Kbuild always had problems with modules built
> from multiple directories and I'm more than glad that we finally managed
> to get rid of the subdirectories.

but I really like the libxfs subdirectory idea.  Any idea if the Kbuild issues
are sorted out?


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>