* Alexey Dobriyan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > thanks, applied.
> >
> > btw., people have been talking about reducing the include file mess
> > for nearly a decade now,
>
> Some of us are actually doing it. ;-)
sorry, this was really not meant to slight your contributions in this
area in any way :-) I'm just judging by the spaghetti still hanging
around in asm-x86/*.h, and the 'fun' we have with paravirt and its type
dependencies - and the periodic messups we have with macros. (and many
macros are not inlines due to ugly dependencies.)
> > So include file dependency flattening patches would be more than
> > welcome as well.
>
> Yup! Provided they're compile-tested sufficiently well.
as long as it builds/boots on your box with a single convenient .config
of yours, we can stick such patches into x86.git and work out all the
build failures it might cause.
> > (and unlike unification patches they have no expectation of being
> > 100% perfect, so a natural ping-pong of fixes, until the changes are
> > fully correct, would be natural.)
>
> That way you'll never clean anything especially during merge window.
> ;-)
hm, what do you mean?
Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
