Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 26 Apr 2003 22:31:36 +0200 | From | Jörn Engel <> | Subject | Re: missing #includes? |
| |
On Fri, 25 April 2003 23:51:19 -0700, Randy.Dunlap wrote: > > I wrote a trivial bash script to check if <sourcefiles> #include > <headerfile> when <symbol> is used. Run it at top of kernel tree, > like so: > > $ check-header STACK_MAGIC linux/kernel.h > error: linux/kernel.h not found in ./arch/h8300/kernel/traps.c > > > What's the preferred thing to do here? I would like to see explicit > #includes when symbols are used. Is that what others expect also? > > However, it makes for quite a large list of missing includes.
As long as it doesn't change the kernel binary, I don't have a strong opinion. Explicit #includes are nicer, but is it worth the trouble? Do the implicit #includes hurt anywhere? I don't know.
Jörn
-- Those who come seeking peace without a treaty are plotting. -- Sun Tzu - 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/
| |