Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 20 May 2007 22:13:12 +0200 | From | Sam Ravnborg <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] Factor out common MODULE_INFO content from module*.h files. |
| |
On Sun, May 20, 2007 at 03:51:18PM -0400, Robert P. J. Day wrote: > On Sun, 20 May 2007, Sam Ravnborg wrote: > > > On Sun, May 20, 2007 at 03:06:15PM -0400, Robert P. J. Day wrote: > > > > > > In order to eventually break the interdependency between the module.h > > > and moduleparam.h header files, factor out the common MODULE_INFO > > > content into a new header file. > > > > The moduleinfo.h file looks redundant at first look. > > Why not push relevant parts from moduleparam.h (the > > MODULE_INFO bits) to module.h and let go of > > the include of moduleparam.h in module.h (when you > > have fixed the users)? > > > > In this way we do not add an extra .h file. > > And files that needs moduleparam.h will anyway always need module.h. > > But not the other way around. > > no problem, i can go that way, too, but there's just one (admittedly > picky) issue associated with that. > > based on the above, we would have: > > 1) module.h handling all generic module content, and > 2) moduleparam.h would "#include" module.h and add the parameter > stuff. > > fair enough, but note that, with that, if you wanted parameter > support, you would need to include *only* "moduleparam.h". are you > good with that? (as i said, it's picky, but you'd probably still have > a lot of people who, through force of habit, would still #include both > just because they think it's necessary. wouldn't hurt, of course, > since module.h would be protected against multiple inclusion.) > > so if you're good with all of the above, i can do that.
The above is fine and better than having an extra file.
Sam - 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/
| |