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:	Sun, 28 Oct 2007 14:25:08 +0100
From:	Bernhard Walle <>
Cc:	Joe Perches <>,
	Alexey Dobriyan <>,,
Subject: Re: [PATCH] proc_fs.h redux

* Russell King <> [2007-10-28 14:04]:
> On Sun, Oct 28, 2007 at 12:59:52PM +0100, Bernhard Walle wrote:
> > * Russell King <> [2007-10-28 11:34]:
> > > 
> > > If you go down that route, you end up with _lots_ of circular
> > > dependencies - header file X needs Y needs Z which needs X.  We've
> > > been there, several times.  It very quickly becomes quite
> > > unmaintainable - you end up with hard to predict behaviour from
> > > include files.
> > > 
> > > The only realistic solution is to use forward declarations.
> > 
> > In header files, yes. But that's not true for implementation files.
> I don't think that needs saying - it's quite obvious.  You can't
> access the contents of structures without their definitions being
> available.

Of course. But there might be the case where an implementation file
doesn't access the structure itself but just passes the pointer to
some other function (which is implemented in another file). In that
case, you also have the choice between forward declaration and
including the header file in the implementation file.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists