* Borislav Petkov <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 01:27:01PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > 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.
>
> Well, rbtree is basically rblist.c and the rbtree*.h headers which
> simply wrap the kernel headers.
Yes - with some details and a nice, includable .h file that userspace
tooling can utilize.
> cmdline is parse-options.c.
>
> IOW, that's splitting it into too granulary pieces with 1-2
> compilation units ber library.
I see no problem with that - it's basically like util/*.c is, just
between tools.
> And what if there are interdependencies between the stuff split this
> way? That could become very painful and unnecessary.
What dependencies do you mean? The only constraint is to not make it
circular - but that's easy to do if they are nicely separated per
concept. I don't think rbtree.h ever wants to include cmdline
processing or debugfs processing.
> So having a simple single library which includes generic stuff
> needed to interface with the kernel is much simpler and sane, IMHO.
For userspace and for kernel space subsystems a single .h file per
separate concept works the best. That is why we have a separate
rbtree.h, list.h, slab.h, etc.
> And, since we're keeping it internal, we can do the split the other
> way around instead - first do the single generic library and then
> carve out a certain subset of functionality if/when it makes sense.
Why?
> The same approach we can use for the name - first split and work
> with it and change stuff when the need for it arises.
>
> > 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 ...
>
> Right.
Hey, that's an important point of agreement! :-)
Thanks,
Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
