Eric Blake <ebl...@redhat.com> writes:
> On 08/10/2017 09:06 AM, Pradeep Jagadeesh wrote:
>>>> It's not "moving it back", it's keeping it where it is. But I see no big
>>>> problem with moving it to a common file either.
>>> I'd rather not put every struct shared across subsystem boundaries in
>>> its own file.
>>> We can keep it right where it is for now. Bonus: more readable diff.
>>> If we start sharing more throttle-related material than just a struct,
>>> we can reconsider.
>>> We could also move it to the existing file for common stuff:
>>> qapi/common.json. Not a great fit, though.
>> So, the final conclusion is to move to common.json?
> If more than one .json file would benefit by including the definition,
> then put it in a separate file that both .json include from.
This is the case.
Your opinion is incompatible with mine, stated above.
> But if only one .json file would be including a new file, then just
> inline the struct directly into that one original file (in this case,
> block-core.json) instead of creating a separate file (so no to needing
> iothrottle.json), or putting the code in yet a different file than the
> one that is using the struct (so no to putting it in common.json).
This is no longer the case.
Conclusion: no consensus, yet.