[0/3] xfsprogs: more libxfs/ spring cleaning

Message

Eric Sandeen May 16, 2019, 5:42 p.m. UTC

It wasn't super clear before - my goal here is to keep reducing
cosmetic differences between kernelspace & userspace libxfs/*
files and functions.

To that end, 3 more patches ... the first one may requires someone
who groks the libxfs_* API namespace picture (looking at you, Dave!)

(this abandons the "make new files" patches I sent before, at least
for now, I'll heed dave's advice to minimize moves...)

Thanks,
-Eric

Comments

Darrick J. Wong May 20, 2019, 11:03 p.m. UTC | #1

On Thu, May 16, 2019 at 12:42:45PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> It wasn't super clear before - my goal here is to keep reducing
> cosmetic differences between kernelspace & userspace libxfs/*
> files and functions.
> 
> To that end, 3 more patches ... the first one may requires someone
> who groks the libxfs_* API namespace picture (looking at you, Dave!)
> 
> (this abandons the "make new files" patches I sent before, at least
> for now, I'll heed dave's advice to minimize moves...)

Er, can you turn on diffstat for each patch that gets sent?  That'll
make it much easier for me to figure out if any of these patches have to
go in the kernel first.

I /think/ the answer is 'no'....?

--D

> Thanks,
> -Eric

Darrick J. Wong May 20, 2019, 11:10 p.m. UTC | #2

On Mon, May 20, 2019 at 04:03:11PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> On Thu, May 16, 2019 at 12:42:45PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> > It wasn't super clear before - my goal here is to keep reducing
> > cosmetic differences between kernelspace & userspace libxfs/*
> > files and functions.
> > 
> > To that end, 3 more patches ... the first one may requires someone
> > who groks the libxfs_* API namespace picture (looking at you, Dave!)
> > 
> > (this abandons the "make new files" patches I sent before, at least
> > for now, I'll heed dave's advice to minimize moves...)
> 
> Er, can you turn on diffstat for each patch that gets sent?  That'll
> make it much easier for me to figure out if any of these patches have to
> go in the kernel first.
> 
> I /think/ the answer is 'no'....?

Yes, this is purely userspace stuff, no kernel patches required.

For the whole series (modulo everyone else's comments),
Reviewed-by: Darrick J. Wong <[e-mail]>

--D


> --D
> 
> > Thanks,
> > -Eric