Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 26 Apr 2005 10:21:44 +0200 (CEST) | From | Geert Uytterhoeven <> | Subject | Re: Linux 2.6.12-rc3 |
| |
On Tue, 26 Apr 2005, Al Viro wrote: > On Mon, Apr 25, 2005 at 09:14:01PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > > On Thu, 21 Apr 2005, Al Viro wrote: > > > As far as I can see that's the minimally intrusive header changes needed > > > to avoid problems - better than variant with splitting sched.h as in m68k CVS. > > > > We can discuss about that. IIRC, HCH is also in favor of splitting off struct > > task_struct from sched.h. > > Sure, but splitting sched.h is a separate story. Mixing it with m68k > merge will only make both harder. It requires more include reordering > and I'd rather keep that headache separate from m68k issues. I agree > that eventual splitup of sched.h makes sense. However, I think that > going for minimally intrusive variant of merge and then dealing with > sched.h would be easier for everyone.
I agree, it's a separate story.
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
-- Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that. -- Linus Torvalds - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |