Hey Christoph, On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 08:56:44AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 06:00:09PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > > So what I really think needs to happen here first is similar to the > > dir2 header file re-org. That is, a header file to define the > > format, and a header file to define the in-kernel structures and > > APIs.... > > Yes, I think we need to do this rather sooner than later. In fact > I'd feeling we need to tackle the whole header mess first before > splitting the .c files. Making sure the on-disk format is in one > or just a few headers is the most important bit of that. > > These days I'm actually of the opinion that we probably should be > even more drastic about cutting the number of headers. For the > on disk format a xfs_format.h for all the regular on disk format and > maybe and xfs_log_format.h should be more than enough. I like the idea of having the entire on-disk format in just a few files. It would be a nice clean up. I don't know if splitting the .c files needs to wait on it though. > But back to the _ops.c naming. I really hate it and the best counter > proposals I can come up with is to add a _common postfix to every file > intended to be shared with userspace. I don't understand what you don't like about the _ops.c naming... > Using a directly also would make > sense, but for some reason Kbuild always had problems with modules built > from multiple directories and I'm more than glad that we finally managed > to get rid of the subdirectories. but I really like the libxfs subdirectory idea. Any idea if the Kbuild issues are sorted out? -Ben _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
