Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 5 Nov 2005 08:53:03 +0100 (CET) | From | Tim Schmielau <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/2] fix remaining missing includes |
| |
On Fri, 4 Nov 2005, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Tim Schmielau <tim@physik3.uni-rostock.de> wrote: > > > > /* Encode and de-code a swap entry */ > > @@ -464,6 +464,7 @@ static inline int ptep_test_and_clear_di > > > > extern spinlock_t pa_dbit_lock; > > > > +struct mm_struct; > > Generally, it's better to put these forward struct declarations right at > the top of the header file (after the nested includes). > > Because if someone comes along later and adds some code which uses > mm_struct at line 300, he's going to say a rude word and then add a second > forward declaration at line 299, and we end up with two of them. Or he's > more awake and he just moves your declaration. Either way, putting it at > the top of the file eliminates the problem.
I was unsure how to handle this and decided to stick with the style of each file for now as I wanted the patch to be minimally intrusive. I.e., if the file had forward declarations right in front of their use, I did it that way. If it had them at the top (or didn't have any, but I might have decided wrong on some of these), I put them there.
BTW this mostly came up within architecure specific files and was similar for each arch, so it seems to reflect their maintainers taste...
> > A followup patch sometime would be nice.. >
Sure. But it will take some days as I feel quite exhausted from getting the previous patch to work and want to reserve my spare time for any problems these patches bring up.
Thanks for your advice!
Tim - 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/
| |