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

[Daniel Kiper <daniel.kiper@xxxxxxxxxx>]

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