On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 06:40:11AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > 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... Cool, sounds good. > > > 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? Yeah, it sounds like it... regardless of whether it goes into a separate directory. I would also be good to get that old xfstest going again. Looks like it was 040. -Ben _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
