Messages in this thread |  | | From | Daniel Phillips <> | Subject | Re: page-flags.h pollution? | Date | Sun, 1 Sep 2002 23:34:39 +0200 |
| |
On Friday 30 August 2002 08:37, Andrew Morton wrote: > David Mosberger wrote: > > > > In the 2.5.3x kernel, what's the point of defining pte_chain_lock() > > and pte_chain_unlock() in page-flags.h? These two routines make it > > impossible to include page-flags.h on it's own, because they require > > "struct page" to be defined (and a forward declaration isn't > > sufficient either). This can introduce rather annoying circular > > include-file dependencies. > > It's a wart. The now-abandoned hashed spinlocking patch moves > them into <linux/rmap-locking.h>. We can do that anyway - only > two files need it. > > Or maybe just put them in asm-generic/rmap.h. I'll fix it up.
Yup. As a matter of principle, headers for data should be separated from headers for operations.
-- Daniel - 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/
|  |