On Thu, Dec 28, 2006 at 09:58:17PM +0100, Tim Schmielau wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Dec 2006, Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 28 Dec 2006 21:27:40 +0100 (CET)
> > Tim Schmielau <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > After Al Viro (finally) succeeded in removing the sched.h #include in
> > > module.h recently, it makes sense again to remove other superfluous
> > > sched.h includes.
> >
> > Why are they "superfluous"? Because those compilation
> > units pick up sched.h indirectly, via other includes?
> >
> > If so, is that a thing we want to do?
>
> No, there is nothing at all in these files that needs sched.h. I suppose
> the includes are left over from times when more unrelated macros lived in
> sched.h (fortunately much of that cruft got cleand up already).
Uh-huh. How much of build coverage have you got with it? Note that
"doesn't use symbols defined in sched.h" != "can remove include of
sched.h", which, in turn, is not the same as "removing it doesn't
cause problems on a couple of configs I've tried on amd64".
-
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]
