Re: [PATCH] x86: more header fixes

["Vegard Nossum" <vegard.nossum@gmail.com>]

On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 1:38 PM, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> wrote:
>> Though I still believe it should be squashed for bisectability.
>
> hm, i pulled it but 1ab9e368 cannot be squashed into aa27f9586 cleanly.

Yes, you are right. I forgot to check.

> I'd suggest the following approach, which we used for the scripted
> unification of arch/x86. Do a couple of preparatory patches that just
> bring all the header guards into proper shape. _Then_ run the script
> against that "prepared" tree. The end result should be correct to the
> best of our current knowledge. (i'll figure out any remaining build
> breakages quickly - i can build 120+ random kernels per hour)
>
> We can rebase x86/header-guards to such a bisectable approach no problem
> if you can do it like that, it's not yet merged anywhere. Just send me a
> pull URI that i'll pull into a x86/header-guards that is reset back to
> linus/master.
>
> Can you see any complications with that approach?

There's not really that much to prepare. But it really helps to work
against the right tree to begin with :-)

So here's another one, this time prepared against linus/master, and
fully bisectable by delaying the fixing of the headers which have
external users of their guard-names. Check out the (new) 'for-tip'
branch of

    git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/vegard/linux-2.6-headers.git

There are still headers left which have no guard at all; that's okay.
If they should be changed, it can be done later, it shouldn't make a
difference for now.

Thanks :-)


Vegard

-- 
"The animistic metaphor of the bug that maliciously sneaked in while
the programmer was not looking is intellectually dishonest as it
disguises that the error is the programmer's own creation."
	-- E. W. Dijkstra, EWD1036