From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Howells Subject: Re: [PATCH 14/17] UAPI: Make linux/patchkey.h easier to parse Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2011 13:57:57 +0000 Message-ID: <12078.1323784677@redhat.com> References: <11863.1323784204@redhat.com> <20111213235714.8e1c456786e60acc691b899e@canb.auug.org.au> <1323770653-19177-1-git-send-email-dhowells@redhat.com> <1323770653-19177-15-git-send-email-dhowells@redhat.com> Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:56987 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753497Ab1LMN6T (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Dec 2011 08:58:19 -0500 In-Reply-To: <11863.1323784204@redhat.com> Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Stephen Rothwell Cc: dhowells@redhat.com, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, arnd@arndb.de, alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org David Howells wrote: > > Is this part missing, or no longer needed? > > It seems to have got lost somewhere. Thanks for catching it. Actually, it doesn't seem to be necessary. The header splitter managed to cope without it and did the right thing. I think what happened was that the splitter didn't recognise the _LINUX_PATCHKEY_H_INDIRECT thing as a reinclusion guard, so it just tossed that into the UAPI header, then recognised the _LINUX_PATCHKEY_H thing as the reinclusion guard and proceeded from there. Would you prefer that I remove that from the comments or would you prefer that I leave things unchanged? David