| 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: <1353092514.2512.4.camel@joe-AO722> Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2012 11:01:54 -0800 From: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com> To: Samuel Iglesias Gonsálvez <siglesias@...lia.com> Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, devel@...verdev.osuosl.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, industrypack-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net, jens.taprogge@...rogge.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] ipack: move header files to include/linux On Fri, 2012-11-16 at 19:14 +0100, Samuel Iglesias Gonsálvez wrote: > On Fri, 2012-11-16 at 10:08 -0800, Joe Perches wrote: > > On Fri, 2012-11-16 at 18:34 +0100, Samuel Iglesias Gonsalvez wrote: > > > Move ipack header files to include/linux/ directory where they belong to. > > > > Why do these belong in include/linux? > > They are used for other drivers that could be in other directories. But are not currently. > > What's wrong with path relative includes? > > There is nothing wrong with relative includes. It's just to do the > things as other subsystems do: keeping the bus' header file in > include/linux directory. > > Is this approach wrong for this case? There's enough clutter in include/linux, so until these includes are used by other directory drivers, I think so, yes. cheers, Joe -- 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