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

["Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

>>> On 05.12.14 at 10:33, <Ian.Campbell@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, 2014-12-05 at 07:37 +0000, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> >>> On 04.12.14 at 22:22, <roy.franz@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 1:35 AM, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx> 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.
>> > 
>> > I don't mind a change here, and I agree that it is more like a .c file
>> > than a .h.  If a name change is done, is it worth dropping the "efi-" at
>> > the same time?
>> 
>> If we indeed want to change the name (post 4.5), making both
>> adjustments at once would be kind of a requirement of mine.
> 
> Random thought: *.inc for .c files which happen to be embedded into
> another using #include?

That may conflict with certain editors' language detection, as .inc
may have other meanings (in the x86 Windows world I'd expect this
to be an assembler include file for example).

Jan


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