From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linux-foundation.org ([140.211.169.13]:60612 "EHLO smtp1.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753561AbYEUInp (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 May 2008 04:43:45 -0400 Date: Wed, 21 May 2008 01:43:37 -0700 From: Andrew Morton Subject: Re: [PATCH] KBUILD: Move non-__KERNEL__-checking headers to header-y. Message-Id: <20080521014337.1543ff20.akpm@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: References: <20080520000835.80f7b14a.akpm@linux-foundation.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kbuild-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: "Robert P. J. Day" Cc: kbuild devel list , David Woodhouse On Wed, 21 May 2008 04:36:30 -0400 (EDT) "Robert P. J. Day" wrote: > On Tue, 20 May 2008, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > On Sat, 17 May 2008 20:18:07 -0400 (EDT) "Robert P. J. Day" wrote: > > > > > > > > Move exported header files under include/linux that don't check the > > > __KERNEL__ preprocessor from unifdef-y to header-y. > > > > > > > Changelog fails to tell us why this change is being made. > > > > Perhaps it's because these headers just don't need unifdef processing? > > > > If so, that seems fragile. If we later add a __KERNEL__ section to > > a header we need to remember to move the file to unifdef-y, and > > we'll forget. It'd be better to process all files with unifdef. > > > > Or something. Or not. > > i don't see a problem with simply running all exported files through > unifdef -- i've never understood the two categories since the unifdef > process is not exactly CPU-intensive and it can't possibly hurt for > some of those operations to be redundant. > > but as long as the two categories exist, might as well keep them > clean. > Well... not to let this go for now - nuking the header-y stuff is an attractive cleanup. David, are we missing something here?