From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754867Ab1JMVwI (ORCPT ); Thu, 13 Oct 2011 17:52:08 -0400 Received: from mail.windriver.com ([147.11.1.11]:61277 "EHLO mail.windriver.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754614Ab1JMVwF (ORCPT ); Thu, 13 Oct 2011 17:52:05 -0400 Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2011 17:51:43 -0400 From: Paul Gortmaker To: Rusty Russell CC: , , , , Subject: Re: [RFC/PULL 00/11] introduce export.h; reduce module.h usage Message-ID: <20111013215142.GB28189@windriver.com> References: <1311830178-30314-1-git-send-email-paul.gortmaker@windriver.com> <87botlej9o.fsf@rustcorp.com.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87botlej9o.fsf@rustcorp.com.au> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org [Re: [RFC/PULL 00/11] introduce export.h; reduce module.h usage] On 13/10/2011 (Thu 12:37) Rusty Russell wrote: > On Thu, 28 Jul 2011 01:16:07 -0400, Paul Gortmaker wrote: > > I don't think there really is any rocket science or contentious stuff here. > > It is a sensible cleanup that adds organization and speeds up compiles. > > The RFC I'm hoping for is more about how/when we want to get this in tree. > > In future, when you're ripping into module.h, please CC the module > maintainer. It's not just a courtesy, it helps everyone avoid redundant > work. Sorry about that. I think I'd created the original module.h patch in the context of the thread that Ingo started, and it never crossed my mind at the time to run get_maintainer.pl on module.h itself. And that patch hasn't changed since. An oversight on my part. :( > > You may insert your own sarcastic comment about "rocket science" here. Yeah, fair enough -- remembering to CC maintainers isn't rocket science. I hope you'll accept that it was an honest oversight caused by circumstance and that it wasn't an intentional exclusion. > > As to the patch: it's marginal improvement, but it's neater and I'm > happy you're doing it. Thanks -- I'm glad at least the end result is OK with you. Paul. > > Thanks, > Rusty.