* Gary Hook (gary.h...@nimboxx.com) wrote: > > > On 10/30/14, 7:26 AM, "Amit Shah" <amit.s...@redhat.com> wrote: > > >On (Thu) 16 Oct 2014 [08:53:52], Dr. David Alan Gilbert (git) wrote: > >> From: "Dr. David Alan Gilbert" <dgilb...@redhat.com> > >> > >> The migration code now occupies a fair chunk of the top level .c > >> files, it seems time to give it it's own directory. > > > >s/it's/its > > 6 out of 87 .c files, and approximately 370 blocks out of 2840 (based on > du output). 13% is a "fair chunk"?
I'm not sure how you got 6; migration.c migration-exec.c migration-fd.c migration-rdma.c migration-tcp.c migration-unix.c qemu-file-buf.c qemu-file.c qemu-file-stdio.c qemu-file-unix.c vmstate.c xbzrle.c so that's 12, and there are another 3 in the commit message saying they could do with being moved. That would be 15 files, or 17% - and so yes, I do call that a fair chunk. > But tidy organization is a good thing while needless renaming is not. The > only goal that the suggested renames would appear to accomplish is > additional obfuscation. How about just moving them into a subdirectory and > leave their names alone? Which is what I did; however I have sympathy with those that think that in a directory called 'migration' starting a bunch of the files with 'migration-' is excessive. Dave -- Dr. David Alan Gilbert / dgilb...@redhat.com / Manchester, UK
