From: Sukadev Bhattiprolu Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/6][usercr]: Rename/reorg usercr code Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2010 10:16:04 -0700 Message-ID: <20100426171603.GB27542@us.ibm.com> References: <20100414004927.GA13012@us.ibm.com> <20100420180733.GA13874@us.ibm.com> <4BD4A501.6070106@cs.columbia.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4BD4A501.6070106-eQaUEPhvms7ENvBUuze7eA@public.gmane.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: containers-bounces-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org Errors-To: containers-bounces-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org To: Oren Laadan Cc: Containers List-Id: containers.vger.kernel.org Oren Laadan [orenl-eQaUEPhvms7ENvBUuze7eA@public.gmane.org] wrote: > Hi Suka, > > Thanks for the patchset. A couple of comments: > > * I prefer the header exported to users to be checkpoint.h - this > is consistent with kernel headers, and with future name of a c/r > library if we opt libcheckpoint.a That is fine. Will this checkpoint.h include ? > > * I also prefer to leave checkpoint.c as a separate file, as is. > It may gain more functionality in the future. If the goal was to > only export a single .o file, then the solution IMHO is to instead > export a single library: libcheckpoint.a A single .o was not really a goal. Sure, if we are ready for libcheckpoint.a then thats a better way. > > Unless you have a strong opinion against the above, I'll go ahead > and pull patches 1-3, leave out 4-6, and update the Makefile to > create a libcheckpoint.a library. How about patch 6, renaming 'common.h' to 'cr_log.h' (file internal to usercr) ? Let me know if you want me to resend the patches dropping 4 and 5. Sukadev