On Tue, 13 Apr 2021 17:42:37 -0700 Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Apr 13, 2021 at 5:18 PM Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Apr 6, 2021 at 10:47 AM Jonathan Cameron > > <Jonathan.Cameron@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, 1 Apr 2021 07:30:47 -0700 > > > Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > In preparation for sharing cxl.h with other generic CXL consumers, > > > > move / consolidate some of the memory device specifics to mem.h. > > > > > > > > Reviewed-by: Ben Widawsky <ben.widawsky@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > Signed-off-by: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > Hi Dan, > > > > > > Would be good to see something in this patch description saying > > > why you chose to have mem.h rather than push the defines down > > > into mem.c (which from the current code + patch set looks like > > > the more logical thing to do). > > > > The main motivation was least privilege access to memory-device > > details, so they had to move out of cxl.h. As to why move them in to a > > new mem.h instead of piling more into mem.c that's just a personal > > organizational style choice to aid review. I tend to go to headers > > first and read data structure definitions before reading the > > implementation, and having that all in one place is cleaner than > > interspersed with implementation details in the C code. It's all still > > private to drivers/cxl/ so I don't see any "least privilege" concerns > > with moving it there. > > > > Does that satisfy your concern? > > > > If yes, I'll add the above to v3. > > Oh, another thing it helps is the information content of diffstats to > distinguish definition changes from implementation development. I go the other way style wise, but agree it doesn't really matter for local headers included from few other files. Adding a above to comment will at least avoid anyone else (or forgetful me) raising question on v3. Jonathan
