Re: [Xen-devel] A few EFI code questions

["Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

>>> On 05.12.14 at 15:51, <daniel.kiper@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 04, 2014 at 09:35:01AM +0000, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> >>> On 03.12.14 at 22:02, <daniel.kiper@xxxxxxxxxx> 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.
> 
> As I can see a few people people agree to some extent with my suggestion.
> Great! Sadly if we wish .c file than simple boot.c (as Jan suggested we can
> drop efi- prefix) conflicts with exiting boot.c link. Is efi-boot.c OK?
> Or maybe boot-arch.c? boot.h is OK for sure. Which one do you prefer?
> Do you have better ideas?

boot.h would be my preference given how things look like right now,
but I don't think this possibility of renaming warrants a much longer
discussion. Please also remember that renaming always implies more
cumbersome backporting, even if only slightly more.

Jan


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel