[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] A few EFI code questions
On Fri, Dec 05, 2014 at 03:00:14PM +0000, Jan Beulich wrote: > >>> 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, Granted! > 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. I suppose that you are thinking about backporting my EFI + multiboot2 patches somewhere. If you wish I can rename this file after my patch series or even later to take some fixes for bugs in my code not discovered earlier. Is it OK for you? Daniel _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |