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: <20071028130429.GC12554@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2007 13:04:29 +0000 From: Russell King <rmk+lkml@....linux.org.uk> To: viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>, Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>, akpm@...l.org, torvalds@...l.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] proc_fs.h redux On Sun, Oct 28, 2007 at 12:59:52PM +0100, Bernhard Walle wrote: > * Russell King <rmk+lkml@....linux.org.uk> [2007-10-28 11:34]: > > > > 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. > > In header files, yes. But that's not true for implementation files. I don't think that needs saying - it's quite obvious. You can't access the contents of structures without their definitions being available. -- Russell King Linux kernel 2.6 ARM Linux - http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/ maintainer of: - 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