lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Oct]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] minimal alpha pt_regs fixes


On Sat, 7 Oct 2006, Jeff Garzik wrote:
>
> ACK, of course, but I wonder if we can do something about these 1-line header
> files.
>
> Would it be reasonable to encourage developers to do something like
>
> #ifdef ARCH_HAVE_FEATURE_FOO
> #include <asm/foo.h>
> #else
> #include <asm-generic/foo.h>
> #endif
>
> to avoid these 1-line headers?

I actually think that _unconditional_ simple code is much nicer than
conditional one.

With the current setup, we have a number of one-line trivial headers
(which actually could be symlinks - the only downside of that is that
regular "patch" doesn't really know about them, even if git does, and can
handle them, including the "extended git patch" format). They are
unconditional, so following them never implies having to grep for
different architectures doing different things.
I personally absolutely detest the "ARCH_HAVE_FEATURE_FOO" kind of thing
that makes different architectures behave differently. I'd much rather
have a few small and simple files that all look the same and are totally
obvious, except for the odd architecture that actually caused the
arch-split in the first place.

(Also, if the files really _are_ entirely identical, at least it won't add
any overhead at all to git - they'll all use the same backing store)

Linus
-
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-11-18 23:46    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans