[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200422154402.GK185537@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2020 18:44:02 +0300
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 4/7] kernel.h: Split out min()/max() et al helpers
On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 07:52:32AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Wed, 2020-04-22 at 15:51 +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > kernel.h is being used as a dump for all kinds of stuff for a long time.
> > Here is the attempt to start cleaning it up by splitting out min()/max()
> > et al helpers.
>
> While adding organization into kernel.h by splitting
> out various bits into separate files is a fine idea,
> I believe removing the generic #include <linux/kernel.h>
> from various files and substituting the sub-includes
> is not a good idea.
Are you sure?
> > At the same time convert users in header and lib folder to use new header.
> > Though for time being include new header back to kernel.h to avoid twisted
> > indirected includes for existing users.
>
> Yeah, that's the difficult bit and it could make
> using precompiled headers very cumbersome.
>
> I'd rather make #include <linux/kernel.h>" _more_
> common or even used as the mandatory first #include
> for all kernel .c files.
Huh?
Perhaps we may just cat include/linux/* > include/linux/kernel.h?
> That would also ensure that common kernel facilities
> are not duplicated or have naming conflicts with other
> files.
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists