From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S935972AbYCFVCI (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Mar 2008 16:02:08 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1765504AbYCFVBx (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Mar 2008 16:01:53 -0500 Received: from relay1.sgi.com ([192.48.171.29]:59168 "EHLO relay.sgi.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1759431AbYCFVBw (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Mar 2008 16:01:52 -0500 Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2008 15:01:48 -0600 From: Paul Jackson To: David Rientjes Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, clameter@sgi.com, Lee.Schermerhorn@hp.com, ak@suse.de, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [patch -mm 4/4] mempolicy: remove includes for duplicate headers Message-Id: <20080306150148.2aa87468.pj@sgi.com> In-Reply-To: References: <20080306141923.45ce4214.pj@sgi.com> Organization: SGI X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 2.2.4 (GTK+ 2.12.0; i686-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org David wrote: > It simply decreases the remote chance later that ... > > The only way this would make things more fragile is if ... Does anyone lurking on this thread know if there is an established convention in kernel code, whether to directly include all headers that your code explicitly needs, or whether it's ok to rely on indirect includes for such? David and I could debate the fine points of which way is best until the cows come home; the two of us are good at that. This is too minor an issue for that sort of effort. -- I won't rest till it's the best ... Programmer, Linux Scalability Paul Jackson 1.940.382.4214