From: Sam Ravnborg <sam@ravnborg.org>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] romfs: cleanup romfs_fs.h
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2009 19:52:43 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090407175243.GC13089@uranus.ravnborg.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20090407174417.GC14462@lst.de>
On Tue, Apr 07, 2009 at 07:44:17PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 07, 2009 at 07:44:57PM +0200, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 07, 2009 at 06:07:08PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > > There's no kernel-only content in it anymore, so move it to header-y
> > > and remove the superflous #ifdef __KERNEL__.
> >
> > today there is no difference between header-y and unifdef-y.
> > We pass everything through unifdef these days.
>
> The __KERNEL__ removal still applies, and as long as we have two
> different variables it should use the correct one.
>
> But why do you send all through unifdef anyway? That's a pretty bad
> signal to send when we try to get people to do cleanly seprated headers.
We saw too many cases where headers was not assigned to unifdef-y
after introducing "#ifdef __KERNEL__".
So we integrated the install and unifdef step to avoid this.
And with the header stuff in kbuild redesigned the cost was acceptable to do so.
When I get some spare time I plan to re-implement the unifdef tool
so it does exactly what we want it to do so we can skip the
perl/unifdef stuff we have today.
And I should sent a patch to Linus to get rid of unifdef-y so not to
confuse people.
Sam
prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-04-07 17:50 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-04-07 16:07 [PATCH] romfs: cleanup romfs_fs.h Christoph Hellwig
2009-04-07 17:44 ` Sam Ravnborg
2009-04-07 17:44 ` Christoph Hellwig
2009-04-07 17:52 ` Sam Ravnborg [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20090407175243.GC13089@uranus.ravnborg.org \
--to=sam@ravnborg.org \
--cc=hch@lst.de \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).