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

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

On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 07:59:21PM +0200, Boaz Harrosh wrote:
> On 11/11/2009 07:36 PM, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 04:57:46PM +0200, Boaz Harrosh wrote:
> >> On 11/05/2009 12:09 AM, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> >>> On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 05:59:33PM +0200, Boaz Harrosh wrote:
> >>>
> >>> 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.
> >>
> >> Ping
> >>
> >> Bruce? Trond? whatsup?
> >>
> >> Can Benny put these patches in his tree? He said he would be happy to hold
> >> them for a while, but only if they will be eventually accepted into the
> >> tree as a pnfs pre-requisite. Please ACK on these patches?
> >>
> >> I have to make all these put-the-includes-back patches to just make the tree
> >> compile.
> > 
> > They're fine by me.
> > 
> > (Can't speak for Trond, but maybe his initial objection would be met
> > just editing the changelog to replace the absolute "Any header should be
> > compilation independent" by the particular advantages you saw in this
> > case.)
> > 
> 
> I don't see why. Please advise? 
> 
> "should be compilation independent", from what I understand of the English
> language, is suggestive and advisory only. Now, if I was using "must" or
> "shall" like the standard do then that would mean a mandatory directive.
> But I'm only saying "should" which is like saying: "I suggest", or
> "it is recommended". Am I misunderstanding the language?
> 
> Any way the commit log is just my saying so, my sign-off it's not the word
> of Linux-god, is it?

I really don't care.  Do what you think best.

--b.