From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755194Ab0CQROt (ORCPT ); Wed, 17 Mar 2010 13:14:49 -0400 Received: from g1t0028.austin.hp.com ([15.216.28.35]:40366 "EHLO g1t0028.austin.hp.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754094Ab0CQROs (ORCPT ); Wed, 17 Mar 2010 13:14:48 -0400 Subject: Re: [RFC] remove implicit slab.h inclusion from percpu.h From: Lee Schermerhorn To: Christoph Lameter Cc: Tejun Heo , Linus Torvalds , Andrew Morton , Ingo Molnar , lkml In-Reply-To: References: <4B990496.4020002@kernel.org> <4BA00CE4.1090108@kernel.org> Content-Type: text/plain Organization: HP/LKTT Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2010 13:14:43 -0400 Message-Id: <1268846083.4773.64.camel@useless.americas.hpqcorp.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.26.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 2010-03-17 at 11:34 -0500, Christoph Lameter wrote: > On Wed, 17 Mar 2010, Tejun Heo wrote: > > > Hello, > > > > On 03/17/2010 01:16 AM, Christoph Lameter wrote: > > > On Thu, 11 Mar 2010, Tejun Heo wrote: > > > > > >> Lee Schermerhorn was trying to use percpu from slab.h and ran into a > > >> dependency loop. percpu.h was using slab.h for UP inline > > > > > > Did something change there or does the description need an update? > > > > I don't find anything too wrong about the description? > > "Lee Schermerhorn nwas trying to use percpu from slab.h and ..." Well, indirectly, I was including percpu.h in slab.h by way of gpf.h/topology.h. Not actually what I was *trying* to do. s/from slab.h/from topology.h/ is the update Christoph is indicating. Right, Christoph? >