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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0710281143250.30465@fbirervta.pbzchgretzou.qr> Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2007 11:43:50 +0100 (CET) From: Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...putergmbh.de> To: Russell King <rmk+lkml@....linux.org.uk> cc: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>, Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>, akpm@...l.org, torvalds@...l.org, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] proc_fs.h redux On Oct 28 2007 10:34, Russell King wrote: >On Sat, Oct 27, 2007 at 03:40:04PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote: >> and forward declarations of >> >> struct proc_dir_entry; >> struct file_operations; >> >> As a general rule, I think it better to use includes >> than use naked forward declarations. > >If you go down that route, you end up with _lots_ of circular >dependencies - header file X needs Y needs Z which needs X. We've >been there, several times. It very quickly becomes quite >unmaintainable - you end up with hard to predict behaviour from >include files. > >The only realistic solution is to use forward declarations. Especially because it reduces the amount of I/O that needs to be done. - 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