lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Jun]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH] headers_check fix: linux/pps.h
From
Date
On Sat, 2009-06-27 at 23:53 +0200, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 10:03:34PM +0530, Jaswinder Singh Rajput wrote:
> >
> > fix the following 'make headers_check' warnings:
> >
> > usr/include/linux/pps.h:52: found __[us]{8,16,32,64} type without #include <linux/types.h>
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Jaswinder Singh Rajput <jaswinderrajput@gmail.com>
> > ---
> > include/linux/pps.h | 2 ++
> > 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/include/linux/pps.h b/include/linux/pps.h
> > index cfe5c72..0194ab0 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/pps.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/pps.h
> > @@ -22,6 +22,8 @@
> > #ifndef _PPS_H_
> > #define _PPS_H_
> >
> > +#include <linux/types.h>
> > +
> > #define PPS_VERSION "5.3.6"
> > #define PPS_MAX_SOURCES 16 /* should be enough... */
>
> That file has other issues that should be addresses too.
> 1) It uses int rather than wide specific types
> 2) It uses structs with questionable alignmner as per David's comment
>

This should be send in different patch.

> Keeping the warning until all issues are sorted out is preferred.
> If we 'fix' the warning then we loose the reminder that this file
> needs to be eyeballed.
>

You mean files which do not get headers_check warning are absolutely OK.
This is totally insane.

This are different issues and need to send by different series of
patches. Please do not mix up things.

> This is not a quest to eliminate warnings - this is a quest to
> raise the quality and correctness of the exported headers.
> The warnings serves as reminders where to focus attention.
>

ditto.

--
JSR



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-06-28 07:21    [W:0.298 / U:0.032 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site