| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 12:59:20 -0400 (EDT) From: "Robert P. J. Day" <rpjday@...dspring.com> To: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: module.h and moduleparam.h: more header file pedantry well, since my last adventure with header files went over so swimmingly, i might as well keep going. :-) to my surprise, i learned only today that module.h includes moduleparam.h, which flies in the face of all of the documentation i've ever read which was adamant that i *had* to include moduleparam.h if i was using parameters. i'm guessing this comes as a surprise to the 400+ header files which include both unnecessarily. so ... in a perfect world, should a module source file that doesn't use parameters *at all* need to include moduleparam.h? as it stands now, yes, it does, given some ugly inter-dependencies between the two files. so, at the very least, programmers can stop including moduleparam.h, unless there's a cleaner way to do all that. 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 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