On Mon, 2015-04-06 at 12:25 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Mon, 06 Apr 2015 18:19:19 +0200 > Paul Bolle <pebo...@tiscali.nl> wrote:
> I hope you don't think I was mocking you. I wasn't. No, I didn't think you were. > The only issue I can think of that including an unneeded header file > does is to make the compile slightly longer. It's not a major need to > do, but it may be done. This entire conversation was triggered by <linux/module.h>. It has turned into a bit of a red flag for me. That is, if I see a patch adding an include of that header while the code it adds is built-in only, I have a reason to stare at that patch just a little bit longer. Because there's a chance that the code is meant to be modular instead of built-in only or that it contains a few things that are irrelevant for built-in code. It just happened that things turned out to be rather complicated when I stared at Tom's patch just a little bit longer. Thanks, Paul Bolle -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
