lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Nov]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [RFC patch 07/18] Trace clock core
    On Fri, 7 Nov 2008 11:12:38 -0500 Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@polymtl.ca> wrote:

    > * Andrew Morton (akpm@linux-foundation.org) wrote:
    > > On Fri, 7 Nov 2008 01:16:43 -0500 Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@polymtl.ca> wrote:
    > >
    > > > > Is there something we should be fixing in m68k?
    > > > >
    > > >
    > > > Yes, but I fear it's going to go deep into include hell :-(
    > >
    > > Oh, OK. I thought that the comment meant that m68k's on_each_cpu()
    > > behaves differently at runtime from other architectures (and wrongly).
    > >
    > > If it's just some compile-time #include snafu then that's far less
    > > of a concern.
    > >
    >
    > Should I simply remove this comment then ?
    >

    umm, it could perhaps be clarified - mention that it's needed for an
    include order problem.

    It's a bit odd. Surely by the time we've included these:

    +#include <linux/module.h>
    +#include <linux/init.h>
    +#include <linux/delay.h>
    +#include <linux/timer.h>
    +#include <linux/workqueue.h>
    +#include <linux/cpu.h>
    +#include <linux/timex.h>
    +#include <linux/bitops.h>
    +#include <linux/trace-clock.h>
    +#include <linux/smp.h>

    someone has already included sched.h, and the definition of
    _LINUX_SCHED_H will cause the later inclusion to not change anything?



    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2008-11-07 17:23    [W:0.025 / U:62.144 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site