From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751698AbXB1Rd5 (ORCPT ); Wed, 28 Feb 2007 12:33:57 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752027AbXB1Rd4 (ORCPT ); Wed, 28 Feb 2007 12:33:56 -0500 Received: from smtp.osdl.org ([65.172.181.24]:35164 "EHLO smtp.osdl.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751698AbXB1Rdz (ORCPT ); Wed, 28 Feb 2007 12:33:55 -0500 Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 09:34:12 -0800 (PST) From: Linus Torvalds To: Jiri Kosina cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [GIT PATCH] HID and USB HID update for 2.6.21-rc2 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 28 Feb 2007, Jiri Kosina wrote: > > You're right that usbhid.h is not a best place for it. "Not the best place for it" is the understatement of the year. It's totally idiotic. > This IMHO just needs cleanup. Will you accept creating a separate header > file solely for purposes of this blacklist and related defines? *NO*. Dammit, we don't put static initializers in header files. We don't duplicate the data in every single thing that includes a header file. If you want to duplicate the data, you export it as a real data structure, and you *still* put the data structure in a .c file. > Otherwise I will just drop this cleanup, but I still think that the > current situation is horrible. WHAT CLEANUP? The thing is the anti-thesis of a "cleanup". There is no excuse for putting a large array in a header file and including it millions of times. Or even just twice. The point of a header file is to *declare* things, not to have big data structures in. Linus