From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([198.137.202.133]:59032 "EHLO bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725902AbfEOGwk (ORCPT ); Wed, 15 May 2019 02:52:40 -0400 Date: Tue, 14 May 2019 23:52:38 -0700 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/11] libxfs: create new file trans_buf.c Message-ID: <20190515065238.GF29211@infradead.org> References: <1557519510-10602-1-git-send-email-sandeen@redhat.com> <1557519510-10602-7-git-send-email-sandeen@redhat.com> <20190515060750.GY29573@dread.disaster.area> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190515060750.GY29573@dread.disaster.area> Sender: linux-xfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: List-Id: xfs To: Dave Chinner Cc: Eric Sandeen , linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 04:07:50PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 03:18:25PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote: > > Pull functions out of libxfs/*.c into trans_buf.c, if they roughly match > > the kernel's xfs_trans_buf.c file. > > > > Signed-off-by: Eric Sandeen > > So I have no problems with this, but I'm not sure what the eventual > goal is? Just sharing code, or is there some functionality that > requires a more complete transaction subsystem in userspace? > > I'm asking because if the goal is eventual unification with the > kernel code, then we probably should name the files the same as the > kernel code so we don't have to rename them again when we do the > unification. That will make history searching a bit easier - less > file names to follow across and git blame works a whole lot better... Even if we don't want to directly share code having the same file name would still be nice..