mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Sam Ravnborg <sam@ravnborg.org>
To: "Robert P. J. Day" <rpjday@mindspring.com>
Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Factor out common MODULE_INFO content from module*.h files.
Date: Sun, 20 May 2007 22:13:12 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20070520201312.GA25339@uranus.ravnborg.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0705201538250.18011@localhost.localdomain>

On Sun, May 20, 2007 at 03:51:18PM -0400, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> On Sun, 20 May 2007, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> 
> > On Sun, May 20, 2007 at 03:06:15PM -0400, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> > >
> > > In order to eventually break the interdependency between the module.h
> > > and moduleparam.h header files, factor out the common MODULE_INFO
> > > content into a new header file.
> >
> > The moduleinfo.h file looks redundant at first look.
> > Why not push relevant parts from moduleparam.h (the
> > MODULE_INFO bits) to module.h and let go of
> > the include of moduleparam.h in module.h (when you
> > have fixed the users)?
> >
> > In this way we do not add an extra .h file.
> > And files that needs moduleparam.h will anyway always need module.h.
> > But not the other way around.
> 
> no problem, i can go that way, too, but there's just one (admittedly
> picky) issue associated with that.
> 
> based on the above, we would have:
> 
> 1) module.h handling all generic module content, and
> 2) moduleparam.h would "#include" module.h and add the parameter
> stuff.
> 
> fair enough, but note that, with that, if you wanted parameter
> support, you would need to include *only* "moduleparam.h".  are you
> good with that?  (as i said, it's picky, but you'd probably still have
> a lot of people who, through force of habit, would still #include both
> just because they think it's necessary.  wouldn't hurt, of course,
> since module.h would be protected against multiple inclusion.)
> 
> so if you're good with all of the above, i can do that.

The above is fine and better than having an extra file.

	Sam

  reply	other threads:[~2007-05-20 20:12 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2007-05-20 19:06 Robert P. J. Day
2007-05-20 19:15 ` Sam Ravnborg
2007-05-20 19:51   ` Robert P. J. Day
2007-05-20 20:13     ` Sam Ravnborg [this message]
2007-05-20 20:06   ` Robert P. J. Day
2007-05-20 20:51     ` Sam Ravnborg
2007-05-20 21:12       ` Robert P. J. Day
2007-05-21  4:52         ` Sam Ravnborg
2007-05-21  8:37           ` Robert P. J. Day

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20070520201312.GA25339@uranus.ravnborg.org \
    --to=sam@ravnborg.org \
    --cc=akpm@osdl.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=rpjday@mindspring.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox

all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®