Re: [git pull] x86 updates for v2.6.28, phase #1

[Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>]

* Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:

> On Fri, 10 Oct 2008, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > 
> > Vegard Nossum (3):
> >       x86: consolidate header guards
> >       x86: consolidate header guards
> 
> Ok, so I pulled phase 1, but quite frankly, I think this was utter 
> crap. Why the hell did this go in?

we'll fix that up. We'll move all header files to arch/x86/include/asm/ 
anyway later in the merge window, once the dust settles, and can do a 
separate commit for this as well.

The main motivation was that we had a few incidents of missing header 
guards and Vegard asked whether he should script up some complete commit 
that adds guards to all files and i agreed and didnt look closely enough 
- my bad.

this aspect of it:

 -#ifndef _ASM_X86_I387_H
 -#define _ASM_X86_I387_H
 +#ifndef ASM_X86__I387_H
 +#define ASM_X86__I387_H

is indeed broken and deviates from the established convention of the 
header guards as well.

> And yes, yes, we could add the f*cking things back when we export them 
> as header files, but what's the point, really? And no, I'm not 
> guaranteeing that we're being super-careful about namespace issues in 
> all kernel headers that can get exported to user space, but we _try_.

yes, agreed. Sorry about that, it slipped through. (It was one of our 
first real Git pulls and i meanwhile learned to look at them much more 
carefully.)

It's completely my fault because Vegard offered multiple iterations of 
the script and asked us precisely what we wanted.

	Ingo