On Fri, 8 Jun 2007, Alan Cox wrote:
> > if you don't agree with that patch, fine. but suggesting that it's
> > going to result in "a mass of unresolvable dependancy loops" is sheer
> > laziness.
>
> No its "sheer experience", frequently painful. The tty headers and
> the scheduler headers are particularly problematic for getting
> tangled.
ok, i'll defer to your experience. but can we at least apply my patch
to protect console_struct.h from multiple inclusion? that one really
*is* annoying.
rday
--
========================================================================
Robert P. J. Day
Linux Consulting, Training and Annoying Kernel Pedantry
Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA
http://fsdev.net/wiki/index.php?title=Main_Page
========================================================================
-
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]
