Eric Blake <ebl...@redhat.com> writes: > 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.
This is the case. Your opinion is incompatible with mine, stated above. > 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). This is no longer the case. Conclusion: no consensus, yet.
