Re: [PATCH] Break out types from <linux/list.h> to <linux/list_types.h>.

[Matthew Wilcox <matthew@wil.cx>]

On Fri, Jul 02, 2010 at 03:33:52PM -0400, Chris Metcalf wrote:
> On 7/2/2010 3:19 PM, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > Why a new header file instead of linux/types.h?
> 
> I was working from analogy to kvm_types.h, mm_types.h, rwlock_types.h,
> spinlock_types.h.  My impression is that linux/types.h is generally for
> basic (non-struct) types, with atomic_t/atomic64_t being added as
> "almost non-struct types", and of course the historical exception of
> "struct ustat", which has been there since the dawn of time (0.97 anyway).

I think list_head, hlist_head and hlist_node qualify as "almost non-struct
types", don't you?  :-)

I wouldn't mind seeing kvm_types.h, rwlock_types.h and spinlock_types.h
merged into types.h, personally.  They're all pretty fundamental kernel
kind of types.  It's a matter of taste, and I'm not particularly fussed
one way or the other.

mm_types.h is complex and full of mm-specific information, so keeping
it separate makes sense to me.

I just object to the unnecessary creation of tiny files like this.
Which is how we ended up with atomic_t and atomic64_t in there in the
first place :-)

-- 
Matthew Wilcox				Intel Open Source Technology Centre
"Bill, look, we understand that you're interested in selling us this
operating system, but compare it to ours.  We can't possibly take such
a retrograde step."