[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100702204817.GB5842@parisc-linux.org>
Date: Fri, 2 Jul 2010 14:48:17 -0600
From: Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>
To: Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@...era.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Break out types from <linux/list.h> to
<linux/list_types.h>.
On Fri, Jul 02, 2010 at 03:33:52PM -0400, Chris Metcalf wrote:
> On 7/2/2010 3:19 PM, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > Why a new header file instead of linux/types.h?
>
> I was working from analogy to kvm_types.h, mm_types.h, rwlock_types.h,
> spinlock_types.h. My impression is that linux/types.h is generally for
> basic (non-struct) types, with atomic_t/atomic64_t being added as
> "almost non-struct types", and of course the historical exception of
> "struct ustat", which has been there since the dawn of time (0.97 anyway).
I think list_head, hlist_head and hlist_node qualify as "almost non-struct
types", don't you? :-)
I wouldn't mind seeing kvm_types.h, rwlock_types.h and spinlock_types.h
merged into types.h, personally. They're all pretty fundamental kernel
kind of types. It's a matter of taste, and I'm not particularly fussed
one way or the other.
mm_types.h is complex and full of mm-specific information, so keeping
it separate makes sense to me.
I just object to the unnecessary creation of tiny files like this.
Which is how we ended up with atomic_t and atomic64_t in there in the
first place :-)
--
Matthew Wilcox Intel Open Source Technology Centre
"Bill, look, we understand that you're interested in selling us this
operating system, but compare it to ours. We can't possibly take such
a retrograde step."
--
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