On 08/10/2017 09:06 AM, Pradeep Jagadeesh wrote: >>> It's not "moving it back", it's keeping it where it is. But I see no big >>> problem with moving it to a common file either. >> >> I'd rather not put every struct shared across subsystem boundaries in >> its own file. >> >> We can keep it right where it is for now. Bonus: more readable diff. >> If we start sharing more throttle-related material than just a struct, >> we can reconsider. >> >> We could also move it to the existing file for common stuff: >> qapi/common.json. Not a great fit, though. > So, the final conclusion is to move to common.json?
No. If more than one .json file would benefit by including the definition, then put it in a separate file that both .json include from. But if only one .json file would be including a new file, then just inline the struct directly into that one original file (in this case, block-core.json) instead of creating a separate file (so no to needing iothrottle.json), or putting the code in yet a different file than the one that is using the struct (so no to putting it in common.json). -- Eric Blake, Principal Software Engineer Red Hat, Inc. +1-919-301-3266 Virtualization: qemu.org | libvirt.org
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
