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

[Boaz Harrosh <bharrosh@panasas.com>]

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?

> --b.
> 
>>
>> Boaz
>>

Thanks
Boaz