Re: [PATCH 2/5] nfsd: Fix independence of a few nfsd related headers

["J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@citi.umich.edu>]

On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 05:59:33PM +0200, Boaz Harrosh wrote:
> On 10/22/2009 04:02 PM, Trond Myklebust wrote:
> > No. What I'm saying is that this doesn't have to be an absolute rule.
> > The Kernel style guide assumes that everything in 'include/*' is going
> > to be exported all around the kernel.
> > The problem is that we put a lot of stuff which is private to fs/nfs and
> > fs/nfsd in there. Those header files do not have to absolutely follow
> > the style guide rule, 'cos we know what is being included before and
> > after them...
> > 
> 
> I'm not sure I understand
> You are saying that the patches are very good, but only
> the rule I stated originally could be relaxed a little with private
> headers where we might get lazy, if the effects are very local?
> 
> Well, that's not a problem then, right? just that I can relax a bit
> if I want.
> 
> But I disagree: see 3, 4, 5 above and that last patch I submitted. That patch
> is only the beginning. 85% of all source files in nfs/nfsd could receive the
> same love. I only done these I touched. Code tends to stay much-much longer
> then we spend time on it. Better get it in shape the first time.

I'm assuming Trond's objection is just to the patch changelog
(specifically, to the statement that any header "should be compilation
independent"), not to these specific changes.

--b.