From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Dec 28 04:34:28 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6EF281065676 for ; Wed, 28 Dec 2011 04:34:28 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from imp@bsdimp.com) Received: from harmony.bsdimp.com (bsdimp.com [199.45.160.85]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 29F048FC1B for ; Wed, 28 Dec 2011 04:34:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [10.0.0.63] (63.imp.bsdimp.com [10.0.0.63]) (authenticated bits=0) by harmony.bsdimp.com (8.14.4/8.14.3) with ESMTP id pBS4U6GZ042831 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-DSS-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Tue, 27 Dec 2011 21:30:08 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from imp@bsdimp.com) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Warner Losh In-Reply-To: <4EFA8357.5040101@delphij.net> Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2011 21:29:50 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <650DAD7F-FB70-4335-98A6-326A3C18DF10@bsdimp.com> References: <4EFA8357.5040101@delphij.net> To: d@delphij.net X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0.1 (harmony.bsdimp.com [10.0.0.6]); Tue, 27 Dec 2011 21:30:08 -0700 (MST) Cc: freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Preferred place for MD code for new libraries? X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2011 04:34:28 -0000 On Dec 27, 2011, at 7:47 PM, Xin Li wrote: > It seems that we have two different style of arranging files. One is > the libc way, where MD code are put directly under src/lib/libc, > another is libthr way, where MD code are put under = src/lib/libthr/arch, > which is the preferred for new libraries? Do we want to convert from > one to another by the way? New code generally has been adding arch/ where this sort of thing is = necessary. Old code retains the old layout. There's been some heated = debates about whether or not it makes sense to move things en mass. = With subversion, many of the old arguments are not valid (since they = centered around cvs repo copy suckage). However, in addition to the = technical issue, there was the 'social' issue that some loud and = outspoken people hated it, while more, less forceful, folks liked it. = Thankfully many of the loudest yellers have mellowed with the decade or = so that's passed since the issue was last openly litigated. Warner