[PATCH] byteorder: remove direct includes of linux/byteorder/swab[b].h

[PATCH] byteorder: remove direct includes of linux/byteorder/swab[b].h

[Harvey Harrison]

A consolidated implementation will provide this generically through
asm/byteorder, remove direct includes to avoid breakage when the
changeover to the new implementation occurs.

Signed-off-by: Harvey Harrison <harvey.harrison@gmail.com>
---
Andrew, this hunk seems to have been lost when you sent it to Linus, it's possible
you applied this on top of the -next tree where this file has moved, but the tests
tree hasn't been pulled yet.

The rest of the patch went into mainline as 1d8cca44b6a244b7e378546d719041819049a0f9

I believe it was acked-by Paul, but CC'd to be sure.

 kernel/rcutorture.c |    2 +-
 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/rcutorture.c b/kernel/rcutorture.c
index 90b5b12..85cb905 100644
--- a/kernel/rcutorture.c
+++ b/kernel/rcutorture.c
@@ -42,10 +42,10 @@
 #include <linux/freezer.h>
 #include <linux/cpu.h>
 #include <linux/delay.h>
-#include <linux/byteorder/swabb.h>
 #include <linux/stat.h>
 #include <linux/srcu.h>
 #include <linux/slab.h>
+#include <asm/byteorder.h>
 
 MODULE_LICENSE("GPL");
 MODULE_AUTHOR("Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@us.ibm.com> and "
-- 
1.6.0.2

Re: [PATCH] byteorder: remove direct includes of linux/byteorder/swab[b].h

[Andrew Morton]

On Mon, 20 Oct 2008 10:23:38 -0700
Harvey Harrison <harvey.harrison@gmail.com> wrote:

> A consolidated implementation will provide this generically through
> asm/byteorder, remove direct includes to avoid breakage when the
> changeover to the new implementation occurs.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Harvey Harrison <harvey.harrison@gmail.com>
> ---
> Andrew, this hunk seems to have been lost when you sent it to Linus, it's possible
> you applied this on top of the -next tree where this file has moved, but the tests
> tree hasn't been pulled yet.
> 
> The rest of the patch went into mainline as 1d8cca44b6a244b7e378546d719041819049a0f9
> 

Grump.  It happens sometimes.  People putting stuff into linux-next and
then not merging it into the next kernel.

> 
>  kernel/rcutorture.c |    2 +-
>  1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/rcutorture.c b/kernel/rcutorture.c
> index 90b5b12..85cb905 100644
> --- a/kernel/rcutorture.c
> +++ b/kernel/rcutorture.c
> @@ -42,10 +42,10 @@
>  #include <linux/freezer.h>
>  #include <linux/cpu.h>
>  #include <linux/delay.h>
> -#include <linux/byteorder/swabb.h>
>  #include <linux/stat.h>
>  #include <linux/srcu.h>
>  #include <linux/slab.h>
> +#include <asm/byteorder.h>

Should this be linux/byteorder.h?  (Which weirdly doesn't include
asm/byteorder.h).

Re: [PATCH] byteorder: remove direct includes of linux/byteorder/swab[b].h

[Harvey Harrison]

On Tue, 2008-10-21 at 13:15 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Oct 2008 10:23:38 -0700
> Harvey Harrison <harvey.harrison@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > A consolidated implementation will provide this generically through
> > asm/byteorder, remove direct includes to avoid breakage when the
> > changeover to the new implementation occurs.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Harvey Harrison <harvey.harrison@gmail.com>
> > ---
> > Andrew, this hunk seems to have been lost when you sent it to Linus, it's possible
> > you applied this on top of the -next tree where this file has moved, but the tests
> > tree hasn't been pulled yet.
> > 
> > The rest of the patch went into mainline as 1d8cca44b6a244b7e378546d719041819049a0f9
> > 
> 
> Grump.  It happens sometimes.  People putting stuff into linux-next and
> then not merging it into the next kernel.
> 
> Should this be linux/byteorder.h?  (Which weirdly doesn't include
> asm/byteorder.h).

As the implementations all used to live in asm/byteorder.h before
consolidating, it needs to be asm until all arches convert.  At that
time we can do the flip and let linux/ be directly includable.

Harvey

Re: [PATCH] byteorder: remove direct includes of linux/byteorder/swab[b].h

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 832 bytes --]

On Tue, 21 Oct 2008 13:15:34 -0700 Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> > Andrew, this hunk seems to have been lost when you sent it to Linus, it's possible
> > you applied this on top of the -next tree where this file has moved, but the tests
> > tree hasn't been pulled yet.
> > 
> > The rest of the patch went into mainline as 1d8cca44b6a244b7e378546d719041819049a0f9
> > 
> 
> Grump.  It happens sometimes.  People putting stuff into linux-next and
> then not merging it into the next kernel.

The "tests" tree has been requested to be pulled twice (or so) with no
response apparently, so I have now dropped it from the -next tree until
someone decides if we want to integrate it at all.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell                    sfr@canb.auug.org.au
http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]