tech-kern archive

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]

Re: CVS commit: src/sys/arch/powerpc/oea

On Nov,Monday 15 2010, at 7:16 AM, Bernd Ernesti wrote:

> On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 11:24:21AM +0900, Masao Uebayashi wrote:
>> On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 05:52:51AM +0000, David Holland wrote:
>>> On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 03:32:44AM +0000, Masao Uebayashi wrote:
>>>> XXX What is the conclusion about direct vs. indirect #include from headers?
>>> Every header file should include the things it requires to compile.
>>> Therefore, there should in principle be no cases where a header file
>>> (or source file) needs to #include something it doesn't itself use.
>> This clarifies my long-unanswered question, thanks!
>> I've (re)built about 300 kernels in the last days.  I've found:
>> - sys/sysctl.h's struct kinfo_proc should be moved into sys/proc.h
>>  (I've done this locally).  Otherwise all sysctl node providers
>>  includes sys/proc.h and uvm/uvm_extern.h.
>>  (This is where I started...)
>> - sys/syscallargs.h should be split into pieces, otherwise all its
>>  users have to know unrelated types (sys/mount.h, sys/cpu.h).
>> - sys/proc.h's tsleep(), wakeup(), and friends should be moved into
>>  some common header, because it's widely used API.  sys/proc.h will
>>  be used only for "struct proc" related things.
> What are the issues here that we need to fix this right now?

I think that it's quite good time to fix, it would be much harder to do this 
after 6.0 branch.



Home | Main Index | Thread Index | Old Index