On Fri, 24 Feb 2006 08:23:23 +0100 (MET) Jan Engelhardt 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.
> >
> How far does this go? Consider the following hypothetical case:
>
> ---dcache.h---
> struct dentry {
> ...
> };
> ---fs.h---
> #include "dcache.h"
> struct inode {
> struct dentry *de;
> };
>
> Since only a pointer to struct dentry is involved, I would compress it to:
>
> ---fs.h---
> struct dentry;
> struct inode {
> struct dentry *de;
> };
>
> The fs.h file still "compiles" (gcc -xc fs.h), and there is one file less
> to be read. And since dcache.h in this case here should anyway be included
> in the .c file if *DE is dereferenced, I do not see a problem with this.
> Objections?
Nope, your method is good & correct AFAIAC.
---
~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]
