linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Break out types from <linux/list.h> to <linux/list

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Sat, 3 Jul 2010 11:44:14 +0300
From:	Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>
To:	Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>
Cc:	Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@...era.com>, 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 02:48:17PM -0600, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> 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

*cough*

You may want to run spinlock_types.h through preprocessor and see how
much garbage it will produce.

> merged into types.h, personally.  They're all pretty fundamental kernel
> kind of types.

Also we care about compilation speed.

> 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.

Me too. Also jumping over one file to understand what's going on is
better than jumping over multiple files.

> Which is how we ended up with atomic_t and atomic64_t in there in the
> first place :-)
--
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/