Hi Neil, On 12/29/2014 01:47 PM, Neil Horman wrote: > On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 09:47:05AM +0100, Olivier MATZ wrote: >> Trying to factorize the common code goes in the good direction. >> >> However I'm wondering if "common" is the proper place. Initially, >> the common directory was for code common to linuxapp and baremetal. >> Now that baremetal does not exist anymore, a lot of code is common >> to the 2 OSes that are supported (linux and FreeBSD). >> >> What about moving this code in "common-posix" instead? >> It would let the door open for future ports (Windows? or any >> other real time OS? Or back in baremetal?). >> > Posix doesn't make sense IMO, in that a large segment of the functions > embodied > in the common directory have nothing to do with posix API's, and are simply > just > useful functions that have not OS specific dependency (the entire > eal_common_memory.c file for example, to name just one). > > If you wanted to rename the directory, I would say generic-os would be more > appropriate.
That's probably right for most of the code in the patch. I just wanted to point out that "common" is sometimes a bit vague (common to archs, common to OSes, common to all). >From a quick look, these 2 files could be concerned and could go to a common-posix directory: - eal.c (use fopen/ftruncate/fcntl/mmap/...) - eal_thread.c (use pipe/read/write) There's no urgency to do that now and maybe we should wait it's really needed. I was just seizing the opportunity as the code is moved. Regards, Olivier
