From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from gw.goop.org ([64.81.55.164]:45072 "EHLO mail.goop.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752998AbXGAQXq (ORCPT ); Sun, 1 Jul 2007 12:23:46 -0400 Message-ID: <4687D50F.1050007@goop.org> Date: Sun, 01 Jul 2007 09:23:43 -0700 From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH] cross-architecture ELF clean up References: <20070620230854.246399397@goop.org> <20070620230902.387008536@goop.org> <468168FD.1080200@goop.org> <4683D78E.6080309@goop.org> <46851CF3.2070608@goop.org> <20070629181205.GA16724@uranus.ravnborg.org> In-Reply-To: <20070629181205.GA16724@uranus.ravnborg.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Sam Ravnborg Cc: Roman Zippel , "Eric W. Biederman" , lkml , Andrew Morton , Linux Arch , Al Viro List-ID: Sam Ravnborg wrote: > Grouping related things together is always a good approach. But the right > factor should be used for the grouping. For the ELF file is would from a usage > perspective be natural to have constants close to the definition that > they are used to describe. Having constants grouped with other constants just > _because_ they are constants does not cut here. Many ELF constants are used without direct reference to their corresponding structures. My linux/elf-const.h header is just a generalization of the existing linux/elf-em.h header, which just contained the ELF EM_* constants. Given that there seems to be a preexisting need for the EM_* constants in a separate header, and having a separate elf-*.h for each group of constants is a bad idea, it seemed to me that elf-const.h was the appropriate direction to take. J