From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Matthew Wilcox Subject: Re: [PATCH] Break out types from to . Date: Fri, 2 Jul 2010 14:48:17 -0600 Message-ID: <20100702204817.GB5842@parisc-linux.org> References: <201007021811.04197.arnd@arndb.de> <201007021747.o62HlgmV019405@farm-0002.internal.tilera.com> <20100702191910.GA5842@parisc-linux.org> <4C2E3F1F.3010202@tilera.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from palinux.external.hp.com ([192.25.206.14]:40750 "EHLO mail.parisc-linux.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753438Ab0GBUsT (ORCPT ); Fri, 2 Jul 2010 16:48:19 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4C2E3F1F.3010202@tilera.com> Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Chris Metcalf Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, Arnd Bergmann On Fri, Jul 02, 2010 at 03:33:52PM -0400, Chris Metcalf wrote: > On 7/2/2010 3:19 PM, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > > Why a new header file instead of linux/types.h? > > I was working from analogy to kvm_types.h, mm_types.h, rwlock_types.h, > spinlock_types.h. My impression is that linux/types.h is generally for > basic (non-struct) types, with atomic_t/atomic64_t being added as > "almost non-struct types", and of course the historical exception of > "struct ustat", which has been there since the dawn of time (0.97 anyway). I think list_head, hlist_head and hlist_node qualify as "almost non-struct types", don't you? :-) I wouldn't mind seeing kvm_types.h, rwlock_types.h and spinlock_types.h merged into types.h, personally. They're all pretty fundamental kernel kind of types. It's a matter of taste, and I'm not particularly fussed one way or the other. mm_types.h is complex and full of mm-specific information, so keeping it separate makes sense to me. I just object to the unnecessary creation of tiny files like this. Which is how we ended up with atomic_t and atomic64_t in there in the first place :-) -- Matthew Wilcox Intel Open Source Technology Centre "Bill, look, we understand that you're interested in selling us this operating system, but compare it to ours. We can't possibly take such a retrograde step."