Thanks Olivier and Neil. I will make a note on this and will work on it after initial common code movement is completed.
On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 5:16 AM, Olivier MATZ <olivier.matz at 6wind.com> wrote: > 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 >
