On Wed, 28 Aug 2013 14:23:58 -0700 Kent Overstreet <kmo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > I found things to be quite the opposite - it took 5 minutes of staring, > > head-scratching, double-checking and penny-dropping before I was > > confident that the newly-added code actually has nothing at all to do > > with the current code. Putting it in the same file was misleading, and > > I got misled. > > Ok... and I could see how the fact that it currently _doesn't_ have > anything to do with the existing code would be confusing... > > Do you think that if/when it's making use of the ida rewrite it'll be > ok? Or would you still prefer to have it in a new file I'm constitutionally reluctant to ever assume that any out-of-tree code will be merged. Maybe you'll get hit by a bus, and maybe the code sucks ;) Are you sure that the two things are so tangled together that they must live in the same file? If there's some nice layering between ida and percpu_ida then perhaps such a physical separation would remain appropriate? > (and if so, any preference on the naming?) percpu_ida.c? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
