From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758482AbXETUMX (ORCPT ); Sun, 20 May 2007 16:12:23 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755962AbXETUMQ (ORCPT ); Sun, 20 May 2007 16:12:16 -0400 Received: from pasmtpb.tele.dk ([80.160.77.98]:44269 "EHLO pasmtpB.tele.dk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755929AbXETUMP (ORCPT ); Sun, 20 May 2007 16:12:15 -0400 Date: Sun, 20 May 2007 22:13:12 +0200 From: Sam Ravnborg To: "Robert P. J. Day" Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List , Andrew Morton Subject: Re: [PATCH] Factor out common MODULE_INFO content from module*.h files. Message-ID: <20070520201312.GA25339@uranus.ravnborg.org> References: <20070520191552.GA25200@uranus.ravnborg.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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