On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 01:14:11PM -0500, Ben Myers wrote: > 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. I've got patches that separate out all shared user/kernel header information now. They QA'd OK overnight, so I'll post them in a short while. There's no more __KERNEL__ definitions in the code after the patch set... > > 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... I can make xfs_inode_ops.[ch] go away as xfs_inode.[ch] is no longer shared with userspace and contain kernel-only functionality. I didn't go as far as moving everything back into xfs_inode.[ch] because we want to merge some of it with xfs_iops.c, some with xfs_ialloc.c, etc... > > 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? No idea - I don't know the issue is. However, if the issue has been fixed (or could be easily solved) then it seems like there is a rough agreement on moving towards a common shared libxfs base? Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
