- Subject: RE: [RFC/PATCH] zcache/ramster rewrite and promotion
- From: Dan Magenheimer <dan.magenheimer@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2012 06:34:30 -0700 (PDT)
- Cc: devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Seth Jennings <sjenning@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Konrad Wilk <konrad.wilk@xxxxxxxxxx>, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-mm@xxxxxxxxx, Minchan Kim <minchan@xxxxxxxxxx>, Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Robert Jennings <rcj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Nitin Gupta <ngupta@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Delivered-to: devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- In-reply-to: <CAOJsxLHwFqjFC8BqfCHA_6OPFbvNfaFkQEjfPTw=_6QsPKweNw@mail.gmail.com>
> From: Pekka Enberg [mailto:penberg@xxxxxxxxxx]
> Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH] zcache/ramster rewrite and promotion
>
> On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 7:10 PM, Dan Magenheimer
> <dan.magenheimer@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Hmmm.. there's also zbud.c and tmem.c which are critical components
> > of both zcache and ramster. And there are header files as well which
> > will need to either be in mm/ or somewhere in include/linux/
> >
> > Is there a reason or rule that mm/ can't have subdirectories?
> >
> > Since zcache has at least three .c files plus ramster.c, and
> > since mm/frontswap.c and mm/cleancache.c are the foundation on
> > which all of these are built, I was thinking grouping all six
> > (plus headers) in the same mm/tmem/ subdirectory was a good
> > way to keep mm/ from continuing to get more cluttered... not counting
> > new zcache and ramster files, there are now 74 .c files in mm/!
> > (Personally, I think a directory has too many files in it if
> > "ls" doesn't fit in a 25x80 window.)
> >
> > Thoughts?
>
> There's no reason we can't have subdirectories. That said, I really
> don't see the point of having a separate directory called 'tmem'. It
> might make sense to have mm/zcache and/or mm/ramster but I suspect
> you can just fold the core code in mm/zcache.c and mm/ramster.c by
> slimming down the weird Solaris-like 'tmem' abstractions.
I'm not sure I understand... what is Solaris-like about tmem?
And what would you slim down?
While I agree one can often glom three separate 1000-line .c files
into a single 3000-line .c file, I recently spent some time moving
the other direction to, I thought, improve readability. Do kernel
developers have a preference for huge .c files rather than smaller
logically-separated moderate-sized files in a subdirectory?
Thanks,
Dan
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
[Video for Linux]
[Mplayer Users]
[Linux USB Devel]
[Linux Audio Users]
[Photos]
[Yosemite Photos]
[Free Singles Community]
[Linux Kernel]
[Linux SCSI]
[XFree86]
[Devices]
[Yosemite Backpacking]