From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Ahmed S. Darwish" Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2007 02:21:58 +0000 Subject: Re: [KJ] ruminations on kernel.h Message-Id: <20070108022158.GA17437@Ahmed> List-Id: References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org On Sun, Jan 07, 2007 at 03:24:41PM -0500, Robert P. J. Day wrote: > > just thinking out loud here, but does anyone else think that the > header file include/linux/kernel.h is a little ... unstructured? > IMHO, i would think that it would make more sense to partition a lot > of the content of that file into other (and possibly newer) header > files. > I think so too, Kernel.h is just a collection of loosly connected maros. Even the naming of the header relate nothing to its contents (printk Macros, container_of, ..). But will the community accept it easily ?. I mean this will mean patching a very big number of files to use the new names/header files. > thoughts? i might whip up a patch just to get some feedback. If the community accepted it, I have some time to handle the task of patching the files to use the new header files. -- Ahmed S. Darwish http://darwish-07.blogspot.com _______________________________________________ Kernel-janitors mailing list Kernel-janitors@lists.osdl.org https://lists.osdl.org/mailman/listinfo/kernel-janitors