From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay2.corp.sgi.com [137.38.102.29]) by oss.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F16EA7FDD for ; Tue, 6 May 2014 03:37:48 -0500 (CDT) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda2.sgi.com [192.48.176.25]) by relay2.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA908304032 for ; Tue, 6 May 2014 01:37:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [198.137.202.9]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id DGhhMXHNrCgB3VMk (version=TLSv1 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 06 May 2014 01:37:45 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 6 May 2014 01:37:44 -0700 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [RFC] libxfs kernel infrastructure (was [XFS updates] XFS development tree branch, xfs-libxfs-in-kernel-RFC, created. xfs-for-linus-3.15-rc2-52-g6579dd8) Message-ID: <20140506083744.GA9976@infradead.org> References: <20140506071855.F152E7FBC@oss.sgi.com> <20140506075905.GA5421@dastard> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20140506075905.GA5421@dastard> List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Dave Chinner Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com I like this in general, but one major and one minor issue with the include files: - headers that just include other headers are a bad idea in general. Either they are dependent enough that they should be merged, or they are not, in which case they shouldn't. In this case it seems like we should temporarily provide a xfs_mount.h stub in userspace, and just leave all the includes for things in libxfs.h as they were. That doesn't preclude further merging of the headers into more sensible ones as we've started with the disk formats. - do we really need the separate include/ dir? That always annoys me when editing code. It makes sense for something that is a real public interface, which this is not. Also is libxfs/ really the right name? libxfs in userspace has quite a bit more code than this, so maybe we should just called this "shared" for the shared user/kernel code? _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs