|
From: Nicholas N. <nj...@cs...> - 2005-03-31 04:36:10
|
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005, Tom Hughes wrote: >> Instead, it would be better to put the Kal module/subsystem >> in its own directory, kal, and put all the arch/os specific bits >> just for Kal in there: >> >> kal/pub_core_kal.h -- services exported from kal; core but not >> tools may use these >> kal/pub_tool_kal.h -- services exported from kal; both core and >> tools may use these >> >> kal/kal-x86-linux.c -- x86-linux specific implementation >> kal/kal-amd64-linux.c -- amd64-linux specific implementation >> kal/any_other_name.c -- generic implementation Hmm... we were just discussing how having all the arch-specific code in one module/directory wasn't really the right thing to do -- that it's better to follow modules boundaries, and possibly have some arch-specific code in each module. Isn't there a similar situation here? Ie. really the module (or modules) here is our libc replacement or 'utility' module(s) or whatever you want to call it. In which case we shouldn't have a separate kal/ directory just for the arch-specific things. Does that make sense? N |