Re: A few EFI code questions

[Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@citrix.com>]

On Fri, 2014-12-05 at 09:47 +0000, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 05.12.14 at 10:33, <Ian.Campbell@citrix.com> wrote:
> > 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?
> 
> That may conflict with certain editors' language detection, as .inc
> may have other meanings (in the x86 Windows world I'd expect this
> to be an assembler include file for example).

Oh, so does my emacs apparently (a leftover .emacs snippet from a
previous life...). Nevermind that suggestion then.

The existing comment at the top of the included files is probably
sufficient.

Ian.