Re: [RFC: 2.6 patch] include/linux/irq.h: #include

Adrian Bunk
2005-12-21T22:33:31Z

On Wed, Dec 21, 2005 at 10:21:31PM +0000, Russell King wrote:
>
> The point is _exactly_ as the above quotation between Andrew Morton
> and myself. I'm sure it's not me being thick because it's absolutely
> damned obvious from the above.
>
> Andrew said: "Yes, it's basically always wrong to include asm/foo.h
> when linux/foo.h exists."
>
> That statement is a rule. I assert that this is an incorrect statement
> and I assert that there is a proven case where this statement is incorrect.
>
> Hence, to avoid people reading Andrew's misleading statement, I followed
> up on precisely _that_ point and _that_ point alone.

OK, now I got it:

You are arguing only against Andrew's statement of a general rule,
not against my patch.

Sorry for my misunderstading.

> Russell King

cu
Adrian

--

"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed