> From: Pekka Enberg [mailto:penberg@xxxxxxxxxx] > Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH] zcache/ramster rewrite and promotion > > On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 7:10 PM, Dan Magenheimer > <dan.magenheimer@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hmmm.. there's also zbud.c and tmem.c which are critical components > > of both zcache and ramster. And there are header files as well which > > will need to either be in mm/ or somewhere in include/linux/ > > > > Is there a reason or rule that mm/ can't have subdirectories? > > > > Since zcache has at least three .c files plus ramster.c, and > > since mm/frontswap.c and mm/cleancache.c are the foundation on > > which all of these are built, I was thinking grouping all six > > (plus headers) in the same mm/tmem/ subdirectory was a good > > way to keep mm/ from continuing to get more cluttered... not counting > > new zcache and ramster files, there are now 74 .c files in mm/! > > (Personally, I think a directory has too many files in it if > > "ls" doesn't fit in a 25x80 window.) > > > > Thoughts? > > There's no reason we can't have subdirectories. That said, I really > don't see the point of having a separate directory called 'tmem'. It > might make sense to have mm/zcache and/or mm/ramster but I suspect > you can just fold the core code in mm/zcache.c and mm/ramster.c by > slimming down the weird Solaris-like 'tmem' abstractions. I'm not sure I understand... what is Solaris-like about tmem? And what would you slim down? While I agree one can often glom three separate 1000-line .c files into a single 3000-line .c file, I recently spent some time moving the other direction to, I thought, improve readability. Do kernel developers have a preference for huge .c files rather than smaller logically-separated moderate-sized files in a subdirectory? Thanks, Dan _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
