On Wed, 22 Feb 2006, Herbert Poetzl wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 21, 2006 at 06:52:46PM +0100, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 21, 2006 at 02:29:12AM -0500, Daniel Barkalow wrote:
> > > On Tue, 21 Feb 2006, Herbert Poetzl wrote:
> >
> > > I think the kernel style is to encourage duplicate includes, rather than
> > > removing them. Removing duplicate includes won't remove any dependancies
> > > (since the includes that they duplicate will remain).
>
> > The style as I have understood it is that each .h file in include/linux/
> > are supposed to be self-contained. So it includes what is needs, and the
> > 'what it needs' are kept small.
> >
> > Keeping the 'what it needs' part small is a challenge resulting in
> > smaller .h files. But also a good way to keep related things together.
>
> glad that I stimulated a philosophical discussion
> about the kernel header files and what they should
> include or not ...
>
> but the idea was more to give the developers an
> instrument to verify that they are not including
> stuff several times, and that's actually in .h
> and .c files, because it seems that often the same
> header file is included twice in the _same_ file
>
> anyway, was this a positive or negative reply?
Hi Herbert,
The goal is not to remove the most possible #includes.
E.g., if sched.h already sucks in kernel.h,
kernel.h still should be #included if the source (.c)
files uses any APIs or extern data from kernel.h.
Does that help?
--
~Randy
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
