Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 22 Oct 2006 19:08:12 -0600 | From | Matthew Wilcox <> | Subject | Re: dealing with excessive includes |
| |
On Mon, Oct 23, 2006 at 02:42:58AM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote: > > > /*+ > > * Provides: struct sched > > * Provides: total_forks, nr_threads, process_counts, nr_processes() > > * Provides: nr_running(), nr_uninterruptible(), nr_active(), nr_iowait(), weighted_cpuload() > > */ > > That's ugly. If it needs that i don't think it's a good idea. > We really want standard C, not some Linux dialect.
Um, that's a comment. It's standard C.
> In theory it is even to do it automated without comments > just based on the referenced symbols, except if stuff is hidden in macros > (but then the include defining the macro should have the right includes > anyways). Another issue would be different name spaces - if there is both > typedef foo and struct foo and nested local foo a script might have a little trouble > distingushing them, but i suspect that won't be a big issue.
Sorry, I assumed you'd've spent some time thinking about the problem.
Here's the problem. If a file needs canonicalize_irq(), it should include <linux/interrupt.h> (which eventually ends up including asm/irq,h), and not <asm/irq.h> (where it's defined). If a file needs add_wait_queue(), it should include <linux/wait.h> (where it's defined) and not <linux/fs.h> (which directly includes linux/wait.h>.
Please define an algorithm which distinguishes the two cases. - 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/
| |