On Sun, May 20, 2007 at 03:51:18PM -0400, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> On Sun, 20 May 2007, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
>
> > On Sun, May 20, 2007 at 03:06:15PM -0400, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> > >
> > > In order to eventually break the interdependency between the module.h
> > > and moduleparam.h header files, factor out the common MODULE_INFO
> > > content into a new header file.
> >
> > The moduleinfo.h file looks redundant at first look.
> > Why not push relevant parts from moduleparam.h (the
> > MODULE_INFO bits) to module.h and let go of
> > the include of moduleparam.h in module.h (when you
> > have fixed the users)?
> >
> > In this way we do not add an extra .h file.
> > And files that needs moduleparam.h will anyway always need module.h.
> > But not the other way around.
>
> no problem, i can go that way, too, but there's just one (admittedly
> picky) issue associated with that.
>
> based on the above, we would have:
>
> 1) module.h handling all generic module content, and
> 2) moduleparam.h would "#include" module.h and add the parameter
> stuff.
>
> fair enough, but note that, with that, if you wanted parameter
> support, you would need to include *only* "moduleparam.h". are you
> good with that? (as i said, it's picky, but you'd probably still have
> a lot of people who, through force of habit, would still #include both
> just because they think it's necessary. wouldn't hurt, of course,
> since module.h would be protected against multiple inclusion.)
>
> so if you're good with all of the above, i can do that.
The above is fine and better than having an extra file.
Sam
-
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]
