On Wed, 27 Apr 2011 08:57:48 -0700, Venkateswararao Jujjuri
<jv...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> On 04/27/2011 03:33 AM, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
> > On Wed, 27 Apr 2011 09:03:56 +0200, Jan Kiszka<jan.kis...@web.de> wrote:
> >> On 2011-04-27 08:53, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
> >>> Now that we start adding more files related to 9pfs
> >>> it make sense to move them to a separate directory
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Aneesh Kumar K.V<aneesh.ku...@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> >>> ---
> >>> Makefile.objs | 10 +++++++---
> >>> Makefile.target | 6 ++++--
> >>> configure | 2 ++
> >>> {hw => fsdev}/file-op-9p.h | 0
> >>> fsdev/qemu-fsdev.h | 2 +-
> >>> hw/{ => 9pfs}/virtio-9p-debug.c | 0
> >>> hw/{ => 9pfs}/virtio-9p-debug.h | 0
> >>> hw/{ => 9pfs}/virtio-9p-local.c | 0
> >>> hw/{ => 9pfs}/virtio-9p-posix-acl.c | 2 +-
> >>> hw/{ => 9pfs}/virtio-9p-xattr-user.c | 2 +-
> >>> hw/{ => 9pfs}/virtio-9p-xattr.c | 2 +-
> >>> hw/{ => 9pfs}/virtio-9p-xattr.h | 0
> >>> hw/{ => 9pfs}/virtio-9p.c | 0
> >>> hw/{ => 9pfs}/virtio-9p.h | 2 +-
> >>> 14 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
> >>> rename {hw => fsdev}/file-op-9p.h (100%)
> >>> rename hw/{ => 9pfs}/virtio-9p-debug.c (100%)
> >>> rename hw/{ => 9pfs}/virtio-9p-debug.h (100%)
> >>> rename hw/{ => 9pfs}/virtio-9p-local.c (100%)
> >>> rename hw/{ => 9pfs}/virtio-9p-posix-acl.c (99%)
> >>> rename hw/{ => 9pfs}/virtio-9p-xattr-user.c (98%)
> >>> rename hw/{ => 9pfs}/virtio-9p-xattr.c (99%)
> >>> rename hw/{ => 9pfs}/virtio-9p-xattr.h (100%)
> >>> rename hw/{ => 9pfs}/virtio-9p.c (100%)
> >> That's a good chance to split up this file, move virtio_9p_get_config
> >> into a separate one and build the large virtio-9p.c as part of hwlib
> >> while keeping the new file target-specific. I've some hack for this
> >> lying around, but now that you are already at it...
> >>
> > How about doing the below patch also and move all those device specific
> > stuff to virtio-9p-device.c and rest in virtio-9p.c ?
> I think this goes on top of your old patch. I am ready to give pull to
> Anthony with old patch.
> May be this can go in next pull?
>
Yes the two new patches can go later
-aneesh
