lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Jul]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH] Break out types from <linux/list.h> to <linux/list_types.h>.
    On Fri, Jul 02, 2010 at 02:48:17PM -0600, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
    > On Fri, Jul 02, 2010 at 03:33:52PM -0400, Chris Metcalf wrote:
    > > On 7/2/2010 3:19 PM, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
    > > > Why a new header file instead of linux/types.h?
    > >
    > > I was working from analogy to kvm_types.h, mm_types.h, rwlock_types.h,
    > > spinlock_types.h. My impression is that linux/types.h is generally for
    > > basic (non-struct) types, with atomic_t/atomic64_t being added as
    > > "almost non-struct types", and of course the historical exception of
    > > "struct ustat", which has been there since the dawn of time (0.97 anyway).
    >
    > I think list_head, hlist_head and hlist_node qualify as "almost non-struct
    > types", don't you? :-)
    >
    > I wouldn't mind seeing kvm_types.h, rwlock_types.h

    > and spinlock_types.h

    *cough*

    You may want to run spinlock_types.h through preprocessor and see how
    much garbage it will produce.

    > merged into types.h, personally. They're all pretty fundamental kernel
    > kind of types.

    Also we care about compilation speed.

    > It's a matter of taste, and I'm not particularly fussed one way or the other.
    >
    > mm_types.h is complex and full of mm-specific information, so keeping
    > it separate makes sense to me.
    >
    > I just object to the unnecessary creation of tiny files like this.

    Me too. Also jumping over one file to understand what's going on is
    better than jumping over multiple files.

    > Which is how we ended up with atomic_t and atomic64_t in there in the
    > first place :-)


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2010-07-03 10:47    [W:0.022 / U:90.172 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site