On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 2:34 AM, Boaz Harrosh <bharrosh@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 08/28/2013 07:59 AM, ronnie sahlberg wrote: >> Ah, Thanks. >> >> I'll do a new patch. >> >> On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 3:56 PM, Andy Grover <agrover@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> On 08/20/2013 07:46 PM, Ronnie Sahlberg wrote: >>>> >>>> Tomo, >>>> >>>> Please find a second version of the patch to make the backing stores >>>> into loadable modules so that distributors can ship core tgtd as one >>>> package and individual backends as separate packages. This prevents >>>> having just a single module for everyone which depends on and >>>> requires a huge set of dependent packets. >>>> >>>> This is version 2 This version only changes bs.c into a shared >>>> library that the backend modules can link with at runtimie instead of >>>> as in the first patch changing all of tgtd into a shared library. >>>> >>>> >>>> regards ronnie sahlberg >>> >>> >>> Hi Ronnie, >>> >>> I think you may be able to avoid making bs.c into a shared library if you >>> link tgtd with the -E linker option. >>> > > Personally I prefer the .so option: > > For one I hate any double dependency, and specially an executable dependency. > This is bad code design and a call for tons of problems. It is called the > libraries hell. Each module should be self contained or only depend downwards > on lower stack. library rules are exactly like package rules only depend > downwards, and the complex dependency should be a tree never a graph ... > > Second with the bs.c as library it is clear and protected what are the API's > the backends are to depend on and import, No crazy unexpected stuff from > a loaded plugin. That is a good point. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe stgt" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
