[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0610230928430.3962@g5.osdl.org>
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 09:31:34 -0700 (PDT)
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...l.org>
To: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
cc: Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>, Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...otime.net>,
Stefan Richter <stefanr@...6.in-berlin.de>,
Al Viro <viro@....linux.org.uk>,
Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>,
Linux Kernel Development <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: dealing with excessive includes
On Mon, 23 Oct 2006, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> >
> > We have tons of issues that depend on config variables and architecture
> > details.
>
> Indeed, so the config variables and architecture details should be handled in
> the include files, not in the (multiple) users of those include files.
The point is - _verifying_ that is actually hard.
If some inline function depends on a particular header, you'll have a hard
time checking for that if there's an #ifdef around it. Which is not
uncommon, we have things like:
#ifdef CONFIG_PROCFS
.. number of inline functions ..
#else
#define function1(a,b,c) do { } while (0)
...
#endif
so I'm just saying that "just compile it" is _not_ a way of verifying that
the header file is complete - because it may well be complete for the
particular config you're testing, but not for some other.
So this is a hard problem. If it was easy, we'd not _have_ the problem in
the first place.
Linus
-
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