[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20070228103309.84a3a9e4.randy.dunlap@oracle.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 10:33:09 -0800
From: Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@...cle.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [GIT PATCH] HID and USB HID update for 2.6.21-rc2
On Wed, 28 Feb 2007 10:28:10 -0800 (PST) Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, 28 Feb 2007, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> >
> > In other words, there is *zero* excuse for that braindamage.
>
> To be clear:
>
> - in header files, we put "common definitions":
>
> * #defines
> * data structure declarations
> * external function and data declarations
> * inline functions ("nicer but otherwise equivalent to a #define")
>
> - but we do *not* put
>
> * actual real code
> * actual real data
>
> because those go into C files.
>
> Yes, yes, all rules have exceptions, and sometimes we have ugly header
> files. For an example of a pre-existing ugly header file that breaks these
> rules, just look at <asm-i386/bugs.h> for example. Yeah, it only gets
> included from one place, but it *still* shouldn't have code in it. It grew
> over time, and none of the individual events were ever really big enough
> for anybody to say "ok, we should clean this up and create a bugs.c file
> in arch/i386/kernel".
It's on my TODO list... just not high priority.
> I'm sure there are other examples of the exceptions too. But I do not want
> to add *new* ugly stuff, and I certainly refuse to do it after we're
> already long past a merge window.
---
~Randy
*** Remember to use Documentation/SubmitChecklist when testing your code ***
-
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