On Tue, 26 Apr 2005, Al Viro wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 25, 2005 at 09:14:01PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > On Thu, 21 Apr 2005, Al Viro wrote:
> > > As far as I can see that's the minimally intrusive header changes needed
> > > to avoid problems - better than variant with splitting sched.h as in m68k CVS.
> >
> > We can discuss about that. IIRC, HCH is also in favor of splitting off struct
> > task_struct from sched.h.
>
> Sure, but splitting sched.h is a separate story. Mixing it with m68k
> merge will only make both harder. It requires more include reordering
> and I'd rather keep that headache separate from m68k issues. I agree
> that eventual splitup of sched.h makes sense. However, I think that
> going for minimally intrusive variant of merge and then dealing with
> sched.h would be easier for everyone.
I agree, it's a separate story.
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- [email protected]
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
-
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]
