On 06/26/2014 12:55 PM, Deng-Cheng Zhu wrote:
On 06/26/2014 12:28 PM, David Daney wrote:
On 06/26/2014 12:11 PM, Deng-Cheng Zhu wrote:
From: Deng-Cheng Zhu <dengcheng.zhu@xxxxxxxxxx>
Since all the files are in arch/mips/kvm/, there's no need of the
prefixes
"kvm_" and "kvm_mips_".
I don't like this change.
It will leads me to confuse arch/mips/kvm/interrupt.h with
include/linux/interrupt.h
We have <linux/interrupt.h> and "interrupt.h".
x86 calls these things irq.c and irq.h, perhaps that would be a little
better.
There's also include/linux/irq.h
Yes, I know.
There is precedence in x86 for some of the names though.
But really why churn up the code in the first place? the kvm_mips
prefix does tell us exactly what we are dealing with.
That's why people created the arch/mips/kvm directory, isn't it?
No. Segregating things into directories keeps code related to one
functional area together.
File names are different. They should carry as much meaning as possible.
For examples of this look at some of these directories:
drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ixgb
drivers/i2c/busses
It is not bad to have a filename prefix related to the function of the
files.
Deng-Cheng
