[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090328233438.GA4957@elte.hu>
Date: Sun, 29 Mar 2009 00:34:38 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...nel.org>, Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>,
Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>,
Jaswinder Singh Rajput <jaswinder@...nel.org>,
x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [git-pull -tip] x86: include inverse Xmas tree patches
* Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> wrote:
> > Personally I'd prefer alphabetic order, sorting based on length
> > isn't a complete ordering. Nearly all editors can sort
> > alphabetically at the push of a key.
>
> I'd prefer if somebody would sit down and write a tool to analyse
> the include hell instead of manually shuffling crap around to
> avoid trivial merge conflicts. I have cleaned up enough stuff in
> the x86 merger myself where I was able to cut the number of
> includes at least in half just by staring at the gcc intermediate
> files. We could do better and automate the analysis so we get down
> to a handful of includes instead of including the world and more.
I do not disagree with include file cleanups (we've done many of
them in this cycle and in previous cycles), but note that the
reduction in include files at the top of .c files actually increases
the chance of patch conflicts: when a new include file is added by
two patches to the same .c file.
Ingo
--
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