Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] headers_check fix: linux/pps.h | From | Jaswinder Singh Rajput <> | Date | Sun, 28 Jun 2009 10:47:11 +0530 |
| |
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
| |