From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29409 invoked by alias); 27 Jan 2006 21:46:49 -0000 Received: (qmail 29401 invoked by uid 22791); 27 Jan 2006 21:46:49 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Fri, 27 Jan 2006 21:46:46 +0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k0RLki6n000440 for ; Fri, 27 Jan 2006 16:46:44 -0500 Received: from potter.sfbay.redhat.com (potter.sfbay.redhat.com [172.16.27.15]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id k0RLkd127185; Fri, 27 Jan 2006 16:46:39 -0500 Received: from [172.16.24.50] (bluegiant.sfbay.redhat.com [172.16.24.50]) by potter.sfbay.redhat.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id k0RLkahD018187; Fri, 27 Jan 2006 16:46:37 -0500 Message-ID: <43DA93EE.7010909@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2006 21:46:00 -0000 From: Michael Snyder User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7-1.4.1 (X11/20050929) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Joel Brobecker CC: Mark Kettenis , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFC] New inf-procfs module (replacing procfs) References: <20060113173921.GJ10275@adacore.com> <200601132027.k0DKRvSf021579@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <20060114033315.GL10275@adacore.com> <43DA7D5F.20208@redhat.com> <20060127203351.GC1457@adacore.com> In-Reply-To: <20060127203351.GC1457@adacore.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2006-01/txt/msg00459.txt.bz2 Joel Brobecker wrote: >>Something we had always considered, but shied away from, >>is to actually split procfs.c into two separate modules: >>one for the old API, and one for the new. It's the only >>way you can really get rid of all those ifdefs, and if >>you're considering a major re-org anyway... >> >>Just putting out the idea. > > > An interesting idea. The only concern I have is code duplication, > it'd be nice to be able to continue sharing the code that is already > shared. I'll keep that in mind! Yeah, that was always our concern too. I wonder, though, now that the general form of the code is fairly "mature" -- how many future bug fixes would be likely to have the same fix in both modules? Or even to *need* fixing in both modules?