[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160225085140.GC3980@osiris>
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2016 09:51:40 +0100
From: Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>
To: Yury Norov <ynorov@...iumnetworks.com>
Cc: arnd@...db.de, catalin.marinas@....com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, Prasun.Kapoor@...iumnetworks.com,
pinskia@...il.com, agraf@...e.de, broonie@...nel.org,
joseph@...esourcery.com, christoph.muellner@...obroma-systems.com,
Nathan_Lynch@...tor.com, klimov.linux@...il.com,
bamvor.zhangjian@...wei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/5] all: s390: move wrapper infrastructure to generic
headers
On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 09:34:12PM +0300, Yury Norov wrote:
> diff --git a/include/linux/syscalls_structs.h b/include/linux/syscalls_structs.h
> new file mode 100644
> index 0000000..a920cbc
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/include/linux/syscalls_structs.h
> @@ -0,0 +1,60 @@
> +#ifndef _LINUX_SYSCALL_STRUCTS_H
> +#define _LINUX_SYSCALL_STRUCTS_H
> +
> +struct epoll_event;
> +struct iattr;
> +struct inode;
> +struct iocb;
> +struct io_event;
> +struct iovec;
> +struct itimerspec;
> +struct itimerval;
This is not needed for s390, right? So might be worth a separate patch
which moves the forward declarations?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists