From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@citrix.com>
Subject: Re: A few EFI code questions
Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2014 09:33:08 +0000
Message-ID: <1417771988.22808.40.camel@citrix.com>
References: <20141203210225.GR16236@olila.local.net-space.pl>
	<548038D5020000780004C9E8@mail.emea.novell.com>
	<CAFECyb8WJwW=winKPNK6eWeEMRa+RNHa_vLwcmUJo3j1WTo3FQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<54816EC3020000780004CFF3@mail.emea.novell.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org>
Received: from mail6.bemta3.messagelabs.com ([195.245.230.39])
	by lists.xen.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72)
	(envelope-from <Ian.Campbell@citrix.com>) id 1XwpGD-0005nc-GK
	for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Fri, 05 Dec 2014 09:33:13 +0000
In-Reply-To: <54816EC3020000780004CFF3@mail.emea.novell.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xen.org>
List-Help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
To: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com>
Cc: keir <keir@xen.org>, Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>, Daniel Kiper <daniel.kiper@oracle.com>, Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com>, Roy Franz <roy.franz@linaro.org>, xen-devel <xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org>
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

On Fri, 2014-12-05 at 07:37 +0000, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 04.12.14 at 22:22, <roy.franz@linaro.org> wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 1:35 AM, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com> wrote:
> >>>>> On 03.12.14 at 22:02, <daniel.kiper@oracle.com> wrote:
> >>> 3) Should not we change xen/arch/*/efi/efi-boot.h to
> >>>    xen/arch/*/efi/efi-boot.c? efi-boot.h contains more
> >>>    code than definitions, declarations and short static
> >>>    functions. So, I think that it is more regular *.c file
> >>>    than header file.
> >>
> >> That's a matter of taste - I'd probably have made it .c too, but
> >> didn't mind it being .h as done by Roy (presumably on the basis
> >> that #include directives are preferred to have .h files as their
> >> operands). The only thing I regret is that I didn't ask for the
> >> pointless efi- prefix to be dropped.
> > 
> > I don't mind a change here, and I agree that it is more like a .c file
> > than a .h.  If a name change is done, is it worth dropping the "efi-" at
> > the same time?
> 
> If we indeed want to change the name (post 4.5), making both
> adjustments at once would be kind of a requirement of mine.

Random thought: *.inc for .c files which happen to be embedded into
another using #include?

Ian.