Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 23 Oct 2006 18:52:39 +0200 (CEST) | From | Geert Uytterhoeven <> | Subject | Re: dealing with excessive includes |
| |
On Mon, 23 Oct 2006, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Mon, 23 Oct 2006, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > > > We have tons of issues that depend on config variables and architecture > > > details. > > > > Indeed, so the config variables and architecture details should be handled in > > the include files, not in the (multiple) users of those include files. > > The point is - _verifying_ that is actually hard. > > If some inline function depends on a particular header, you'll have a hard > time checking for that if there's an #ifdef around it. Which is not > uncommon, we have things like: > > #ifdef CONFIG_PROCFS > .. number of inline functions .. > #else > #define function1(a,b,c) do { } while (0) > ... > #endif > > so I'm just saying that "just compile it" is _not_ a way of verifying that > the header file is complete - because it may well be complete for the > particular config you're testing, but not for some other. > > So this is a hard problem. If it was easy, we'd not _have_ the problem in > the first place.
I agree _verifying_ this for all config and arch combinations is hard. But my point is that right now we're `solving' this at the user (of the include) level, which is an order of magnitude more work. If the includes were (sufficiently) self-contained, the driver writers would have to care less about config/arch dependencies.
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
-- Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that. -- Linus Torvalds - 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/
| |