[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Sat, 9 Sep 2006 23:05:33 +0200 (CEST)
From: Roman Zippel <zippel@...ux-m68k.org>
To: Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>
cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [patch 1/2] own header file for struct page.
Hi,
On Fri, 8 Sep 2006, Heiko Carstens wrote:
> In order to get of all these problems caused by macros it seems to
> be a good idea to get rid of them and convert them to static inline
> functions. Because of header file include order it's necessary to have a
> seperate header file for the struct page definition.
>
> Cc: Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>
> Signed-off-by: Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>
> ---
>
> Patches are against git tree as of today. Better ideas welcome of course.
>
> include/linux/mm.h | 64 --------------------------------------------
> include/linux/page.h | 74 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 2 files changed, 75 insertions(+), 63 deletions(-)
To avoid the explosion in number of small header files each containing a
single definition, it would be better to generally split between the
definitions and implementations, so IMO mm_types.h with all the structures
and defines from mm.h would be better.
bye, Roman
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists