Split worker_pool.cc into worker_pool_linux.cc and worker_pool_win.cc

In preparation for making changes to worker_pool_linux.cc.

Committed: http://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome?view=rev&revision=11149

[willchan no longer on Chromium, 2009-03-04 00:35:40]

I'm a newbie to svn and the chrome build system, so please make sure I didn't
make any silly mistakes.  Also, the try servers seem to be failing for me on the
patch stage, so I don't know what's up.  I'm going to try my patch out on my
windows box in a bit to make sure it's fine, but figured I'd mail this out
anyway.

Also, there's a worker_pool_mac.mm, so should it be named worker_pool_linux.cc
instead?  I'm not sure what the policy is on that.

[willchan no longer on Chromium, 2009-03-04 21:54:50]

Er, woops, didn't specify the reviewer correctly the first time.

[dsh, 2009-03-05 19:49:49]

LGTM, though I don't know much about the gyp changes.

Is the patch still failing?  What's it fail on?  Line endings maybe?

Unless it's specific to Linux, I think it should be _posix.cc.

Thanks!  Sorry about the long reply, I have some filtering issues.

[willchan no longer on Chromium, 2009-03-05 20:03:38]

On 2009/03/05 19:49:49, dsh wrote:
> LGTM, though I don't know much about the gyp changes.

I'll see if I can get someone else to look at it.  Thanks.

> 
> Is the patch still failing?  What's it fail on?  Line endings maybe?

I just tried the try server again.  It gives me these kinds of failures:
http://build.chromium.org/buildbot/try-server/builders/linux/builds/4614/step...
http://build.chromium.org/buildbot/try-server/builders/win/builds/4501/steps/...

> 
> Unless it's specific to Linux, I think it should be _posix.cc.

Cool, sounds good.

> 
> Thanks!  Sorry about the long reply, I have some filtering issues.

[willchan no longer on Chromium, 2009-03-05 20:04:44]

On 2009/03/05 20:03:38, willchan wrote:
> On 2009/03/05 19:49:49, dsh wrote:
> > LGTM, though I don't know much about the gyp changes.
> 
> I'll see if I can get someone else to look at it.  Thanks.

[ +mark ]
Mark, you seem to be behind most of the gyp stuff, do you mind double checking
this for me?  Thanks!

> 
> > 
> > Is the patch still failing?  What's it fail on?  Line endings maybe?
> 
> I just tried the try server again.  It gives me these kinds of failures:
>
http://build.chromium.org/buildbot/try-server/builders/linux/builds/4614/step...
>
http://build.chromium.org/buildbot/try-server/builders/win/builds/4501/steps/...
> 
> > 
> > Unless it's specific to Linux, I think it should be _posix.cc.
> 
> Cool, sounds good.
> 
> > 
> > Thanks!  Sorry about the long reply, I have some filtering issues.

[Mark Mentovai, 2009-03-05 21:25:50]

http://codereview.chromium.org/39081/diff/14/1002
File base/base.gyp (right):

http://codereview.chromium.org/39081/diff/14/1002#newcode332
Line 332: 'worker_pool_posix.cc',
Wouldn't it be better to name it worker_pool_linux.cc if that's the only
platform we're going to use it on?

http://codereview.chromium.org/39081/diff/14/1005
File base/worker_pool_posix.cc (right):

http://codereview.chromium.org/39081/diff/14/1005#newcode1
Line 1: // Copyright (c) 2006-2009 The Chromium Authors. All rights reserved.
Leave the original copyright alone.

Or if you want to treat this as a new file, the date should just be 2009.

The original files have 2006-2008 because it was too much of a pain to figure
out the original date for each, so they all got a range.

[willchan no longer on Chromium, 2009-03-05 21:42:28]

http://codereview.chromium.org/39081/diff/14/1002
File base/base.gyp (right):

http://codereview.chromium.org/39081/diff/14/1002#newcode332
Line 332: 'worker_pool_posix.cc',
On 2009/03/05 21:25:50, Mark Mentovai wrote:
> Wouldn't it be better to name it worker_pool_linux.cc if that's the only
> platform we're going to use it on?

Yes, that was one of my original questions in the email.  Dan said "Unless it's
specific to Linux, I think it should be _posix.cc."  The code itself just uses
posix apis, so it's not linux specific, but we indeed are only using it for
linux.  I have no idea what the Chrome conventions are in this case, so I'm
happy to do whatever people agree upon.

[willchan no longer on Chromium, 2009-03-06 20:18:19]

http://codereview.chromium.org/39081/diff/14/1002
File base/base.gyp (right):

http://codereview.chromium.org/39081/diff/14/1002#newcode332
Line 332: 'worker_pool_posix.cc',
On 2009/03/05 21:42:28, willchan wrote:
> On 2009/03/05 21:25:50, Mark Mentovai wrote:
> > Wouldn't it be better to name it worker_pool_linux.cc if that's the only
> > platform we're going to use it on?
> 
> Yes, that was one of my original questions in the email.  Dan said "Unless
it's
> specific to Linux, I think it should be _posix.cc."  The code itself just uses
> posix apis, so it's not linux specific, but we indeed are only using it for
> linux.  I have no idea what the Chrome conventions are in this case, so I'm
> happy to do whatever people agree upon.

I didn't hear anything more here, so I just went ahead and switched it to
_linux.cc instead.

[Mark Mentovai, 2009-03-06 20:21:14]

lgtm