lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Feb]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [linux-next][PATCH] revert headers_check fix: ia64, fpu.h
    On Fri, Feb 06, 2009 at 05:33:14PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
    >
    > * Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@arm.linux.org.uk> wrote:
    >
    > > On Fri, Feb 06, 2009 at 05:12:29PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
    > > >
    > > > * Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@arm.linux.org.uk> wrote:
    > > >
    > > > > > We cannot see any downside of this patch.
    > > > > >
    > > > > > But we can see upside of this patch is:
    > > > > > 1. No need to protect linux/types.h with #ifndef __ASSEMBLY__ in many
    > > > > > files
    > > > > > 2. So we trying to replace multiple #ifndef __ASSEMBLY__ with one.
    > > > >
    > > > > The point is:
    > > > >
    > > > > 1. If the parent include needs to include linux/types.h to get at C
    > > > > types _and_ the include file needs to also be included by assembly
    > > > > code, it itself needs to have #ifndef __ASSEMBLY__ to protect those
    > > > > uses from the assembly code.
    > > > >
    > > > > In that case, the linux/types.h include should be contained within
    > > > > the #ifndef __ASSEMBLY__ .. #endif block along with all C only
    > > > > parts of the header file.
    > > >
    > > > That makes the code much less clean: putting #include's in the middle of a
    > > > header is poor style and leads to people failing to consider dependencies.
    > > > We generally put them to the header portion.
    > > >
    > > > Putting an #include line in the middle of a header file is a receipe for a
    > > > dependency hell (it can easily fall inside #ifdefs, can be overlooked,
    > > > etc.), so it's _strongly_ discouraged (at least on arch/x86).
    > >
    > > Put them at the top then with an additional ifndef.
    >
    > So you advocate 40 stupid pairs of #ifdefs spread out, instead of a
    > _single_, obvious #ifdef in a commonly used header?

    As I see it, if you want all your style points to be adhered to, then yes.
    And I do believe it to be a valid solution.

    Personally, I'd put them nearer the C code.

    That's precisely what I do with the ARM include files. Never been a
    problem.


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2009-02-06 17:43    [W:0.023 / U:89.372 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site