From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Sam Ravnborg Subject: Re: Move scsi.h, hosts.h to include/linux/scsi ? Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 14:07:56 +0100 Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <20030217130756.GA3510@mars.ravnborg.org> References: <20030216211422.GD8572@mars.ravnborg.org> <20030217121840.A24543@infradead.org> <20030217125334.GA3346@mars.ravnborg.org> <20030217125821.A25189@infradead.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030217125821.A25189@infradead.org> List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: Sam Ravnborg , linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Feb 17, 2003 at 12:58:21PM +0000, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > In general just combining all the stuff in a single scsi.h file > > (the other alternative) looks ugly to me. > > Why? If you think the current hosts.h make sense please explain > me the rules on why stuff is in hosts.h instead of scsi.h.. It was just my first hand impressions that hosts.c had something to do upper.h. I have not looked into scsi before - and I'm not planning to that except on a janitorial level. In other words I can do simple stuff that moves definitions around, but I do not claim I understand the SCSI subsystem. And I do not plan to invest the time needed to understand it. Hope that clarifies. As I wrote in the previous mail, I'm not going to do any split-up as you suggested. Simply because it would take much more time understanding the SCSI subsystem than actually doing the split-up. My only incentive is to avoid those ugly includes that requires an extra option to gcc in my current kbuild patch for separate objdir. Sam