Re: [RFC patch 07/18] Trace clock core

Andrew Morton
2008-11-07T16:21:22Z

On Fri, 7 Nov 2008 11:12:38 -0500 Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@polymtl.ca> wrote:

> * Andrew Morton (akpm@linux-foundation.org) wrote:
> > On Fri, 7 Nov 2008 01:16:43 -0500 Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@polymtl.ca> wrote:
> >
> > > > Is there something we should be fixing in m68k?
> > > >
> > >
> > > Yes, but I fear it's going to go deep into include hell :-(
> >
> > Oh, OK. I thought that the comment meant that m68k's on_each_cpu()
> > behaves differently at runtime from other architectures (and wrongly).
> >
> > If it's just some compile-time #include snafu then that's far less
> > of a concern.
> >
>
> Should I simply remove this comment then ?
>

umm, it could perhaps be clarified - mention that it's needed for an
include order problem.

It's a bit odd. Surely by the time we've included these:

+#include <linux/module.h>
+#include <linux/init.h>
+#include <linux/delay.h>
+#include <linux/timer.h>
+#include <linux/workqueue.h>
+#include <linux/cpu.h>
+#include <linux/timex.h>
+#include <linux/bitops.h>
+#include <linux/trace-clock.h>
+#include <linux/smp.h>

someone has already included sched.h, and the definition of
_LINUX_SCHED_H will cause the later inclusion to not change anything?