Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 7 Nov 2008 13:16:50 -0500 | From | Mathieu Desnoyers <> | Subject | Re: [RFC patch 07/18] Trace clock core |
| |
* Andrew Morton (akpm@linux-foundation.org) wrote: > 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? >
Maybe now it's ok, but in the past, sched.h was not included.. surprisingly.
I'll just write a clearer comment.
Thanks,
Mathieu
-- Mathieu Desnoyers OpenPGP key fingerprint: 8CD5 52C3 8E3C 4140 715F BA06 3F25 A8FE 3BAE 9A68
| |