[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <3f9a31f40901140759s1542e6cclae1808b796c2b1a9@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2009 21:29:35 +0530
From: Jaswinder Singh Rajput <jaswinderlinux@...il.com>
To: Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>
Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
Jaswinder Singh Rajput <jaswinder@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PULL -tip] fixed few make headers_check warnings
Hello Sam,
On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 9:08 PM, Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org> wrote:
>> >
>
> I appreciate your work but I will like to question the approach.
My approach was:
"PATCH should solve a problem per file", like:
capability.h: extern's make no sense in userspace
coda_psdev.h: extern's make no sense in userspace
in6.h: extern's make no sense in userspace
nubus.h: extern's make no sense in userspace
socket.h: extern's make no sense in userspace
But this warnings was in many files:
include of <linux/types.h> is preferred over <asm/types.h> : 15 files
found __[us]{8,16,32,64} type without #include <linux/types.h> : 52 files
So in place of making 15 + 52 = 67 patches, I made 2 patches for each warning.
> We should rather take the warnings as an indication that this
> file needs to be looked over and fix not only the warnings
> reported but rater to fix all the questionable issues on a file-by-file basis.
Should I make 67 patches ?
--
JSR
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists