lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Nov]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] perf: Move fs.* to generic lib/lk/

* Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@infradead.org> wrote:

> Em Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 04:28:04PM +0100, Borislav Petkov escreveu:
> > On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 12:05:24PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> > > "To offers various helper methods to interface with the Linux kernel:
> > > debugfs, procfs, sysfs handling routines with no policy, just pure,
> > > obvious helpers to use kernel functionality."
>
> > Exactly.
>
> > > Naming is a bit hard, to keep it small, descriptive, as API can lead
> > > people to think about other kinds of kernel APIs (syscalls?), "fskapi"
> > > to mean "fs based kernel API" would perhaps be more descriptive? A
> > > longer (more descriptive) possibility would be "linux-fskapi".
>
> > Yeah, you can't have fskapi because we'll add other stuff to it
> > (see the diffstat I sent you last week) so not filesystem stuff
> > only. So I think "kapi" is as generic and as fitting as it gets.
> > We can use the "kernel-api" variant but I think the "k" is enough.
>
> I think is that it is too generic, the other stuff you mention is
> not really "kapi" at all.
>
> The rest, things like util.c, usage.c, rbtree.c, hash, strlist, etc
> are all, well, utilities that we got from the kernel, from git, or
> that were created for perf, could get a tools/lib/util/ generic name
> and be outside the one with the description agreed above.
>
> But they are not "helper methods to interface with the Linux kernel"
> at all.

I don't think those other bits should go into this library. rbtree
should go into lib/rbtree/, command-line bits into lib/cmdline/, build
system helpers into lib/build/, etc.

Merging unrelated things into a single library is a user-space disease
we need not repeat.

I'd also not expose any of this externally but straight link it into
the individual utilities - that way it does not matter that it's a
nice, topical, fine-grained set of functionality.

I don't think we are ready for (nor do we want the overhead of)
maintaining a library ABI at this stage.

Once things slow down and it's all so robust that we've had at most a
handful of commits in tools/lib/ in a full year we can think about
exporting it, maybe ...

Thanks,

Ingo


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-11-22 13:41    [W:0.265 / U:0.104 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site