[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <14ac0fe7-1742-875b-b01a-78b49cae303a@huawei.com>
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2019 20:54:26 +0800
From: Gao Xiang <gaoxiang25@...wei.com>
To: Chao Yu <yuchao0@...wei.com>
CC: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
<devel@...verdev.osuosl.org>, <linux-erofs@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <weidu.du@...wei.com>,
Miao Xie <miaoxie@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 07/22] staging: erofs: remove redundant #include
"internal.h"
On 2019/7/31 20:07, Chao Yu wrote:
> Hi Xiang,
>
> On 2019/7/31 15:08, Gao Xiang wrote:
>> Hi Chao,
>>
>> On 2019/7/31 15:03, Chao Yu wrote:
>>> On 2019/7/29 14:51, Gao Xiang wrote:
>>>> Because #include "internal.h" is included in xattr.h
>>>
>>> I think it would be better to remove "internal.h" in xattr.h, and include them
>>> both in .c file in where we need xattr definition.
>>
>> It seems that all xattr related source files needing internal.h,
>> and we need "EROFS_V(inode)", "struct erofs_sb_info", ... stuffs in xattr.h,
>> which is defined in internal.h...
>
> Since I checked f2fs', it looks it's okay to don't include internal.h for
> xattr.h, if .c needs xattr.h, we can just include interanl.h and xattr.h in the
> head of it, it's safe.
I think xattr.h should be used independently (all dependencies of xattr.h should
be included in xattr.h, most of include files behave like that)... Maybe it is
not a good way to follow f2fs...
Thanks,
Gao Xiang
>
> Thanks,
>
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Gao Xiang
>>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>> .
>>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists