From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755754AbYGVKhG (ORCPT ); Tue, 22 Jul 2008 06:37:06 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755351AbYGVKgt (ORCPT ); Tue, 22 Jul 2008 06:36:49 -0400 Received: from mx2.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:33482 "EHLO mx2.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755288AbYGVKgs (ORCPT ); Tue, 22 Jul 2008 06:36:48 -0400 Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 12:36:32 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: Vegard Nossum Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, the arch/x86 maintainers , Peter Zijlstra Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: more header fixes Message-ID: <20080722103632.GA27029@elte.hu> References: <20080716142225.GA19054@elte.hu> <20080722123231.GA13172@localhost.localdomain> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080722123231.GA13172@localhost.localdomain> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean X-ELTE-SpamScore: -1.5 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-1.5 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.2.3 -1.5 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Vegard Nossum wrote: > On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 4:22 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote: > >> I'm not sure how we should proceed with this. On one hand, we could > >> just fix the issues as they come up and be done with it. On the other > >> hand, this was exactly the thing I wanted to avoid by automatic it. I > >> guess it can never be fully automated... The question is if there is > >> any danger of *silent* (read: runtime) breakage, which would be much > >> worse than compiler errors. > > > > dont worry, lets fix the above hideous hack first, then i can merge the > > guards fixes ontop of that fix. That's why we do testing, to catch the > > cases where assumptions fail. Your script is just fine - it beats having > > to edit 280+ files by hand ... > > I've updated my script to also fix any rogue uses of header-guard > names in auxiliary files. I'm attaching the resulting patch. > > It doesn't really _fix_ the hideous hack, it merely unbreaks it. > > Patch #2 also fixes some left-over headers. They both apply on top of > tip/x86/header-guards. looks good - do you have a branch i could pull into tip/x86/header-guards? Ingo