[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090407175243.GC13089@uranus.ravnborg.org>
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2009 19:52:43 +0200
From: Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] romfs: cleanup romfs_fs.h
On Tue, Apr 07, 2009 at 07:44:17PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 07, 2009 at 07:44:57PM +0200, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 07, 2009 at 06:07:08PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > > There's no kernel-only content in it anymore, so move it to header-y
> > > and remove the superflous #ifdef __KERNEL__.
> >
> > today there is no difference between header-y and unifdef-y.
> > We pass everything through unifdef these days.
>
> The __KERNEL__ removal still applies, and as long as we have two
> different variables it should use the correct one.
>
> But why do you send all through unifdef anyway? That's a pretty bad
> signal to send when we try to get people to do cleanly seprated headers.
We saw too many cases where headers was not assigned to unifdef-y
after introducing "#ifdef __KERNEL__".
So we integrated the install and unifdef step to avoid this.
And with the header stuff in kbuild redesigned the cost was acceptable to do so.
When I get some spare time I plan to re-implement the unifdef tool
so it does exactly what we want it to do so we can skip the
perl/unifdef stuff we have today.
And I should sent a patch to Linus to get rid of unifdef-y so not to
confuse people.
Sam
--
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