From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753393AbbCLIpv (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Mar 2015 04:45:51 -0400 Received: from mout.kundenserver.de ([212.227.126.130]:53338 "EHLO mout.kundenserver.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753334AbbCLIpr (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Mar 2015 04:45:47 -0400 From: Arnd Bergmann To: Takashi Iwai Cc: Mikko Rapeli , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Jaroslav Kysela , alsa-devel@alsa-project.org, linux-api@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 41/45] include/uapi/sound/emu10k1.h: hide gpr_valid, tram_valid and code_valid in userspace Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2015 09:45:42 +0100 Message-ID: <38157374.ndif9EAmZu@wuerfel> User-Agent: KMail/4.11.5 (Linux/3.16.0-10-generic; KDE/4.11.5; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: References: <1424127948-22484-1-git-send-email-mikko.rapeli@iki.fi> <2168807.4Yxh5gl11Q@wuerfel> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:KzyqJ+IZnG9e+hgE/SCB63et9n5HwEtuUC+Vv2qAxwDu1KCLXTg c/n2N9YiRtrKVTh0LW6HeG8F9BQqhLj7GqmgXo9h1R2RktsXKuI/ictJFbHUuEzrF2BanoZ YMLirYxk+likbV92v64LW8dlbeii1QmFGchq7pxwhOn+Zkcv0FO7H5dWRzUeS6LH4MFScl0 ldFITA2904YkeXuOPN2+Q== X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1; Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thursday 12 March 2015 07:11:48 Takashi Iwai wrote: > At Wed, 11 Mar 2015 10:46:29 +0100, > Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > > > On Wednesday 11 March 2015 07:11:18 Takashi Iwai wrote: > > > At Wed, 11 Mar 2015 03:22:04 +0200, > > > > > > Are there any other headers like that? If this is the only one, leave > > > it as is. The only program that reads this are some alsa-tools ones > > > and they have already own DECLARE_BITMAP() definition. Adding the > > > extra definition here will even break the compilation out of sudden. > > > > I think it's a worthy goal to have the header files be compilable > > standalone, > > In general yes, but this case is very minor issue: > - the file in question is for a hardware device-specific data > definition, > - there are only two programs read this file, both can be built > properly, > - and the device and the programs are very old, modifying such need > extra care. Right, we should only do it if the goal is to have all uapi headers includable standalone. For a particular header file there is very little benefit as you say, but it would be useful if we can automatically test for regressions with new or modified headers. Arnd