Re: [git pull -tip] headers_check fixes for other architectures

[Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>]

* Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@arm.linux.org.uk> wrote:

> On Fri, Feb 06, 2009 at 08:04:20PM +0530, Jaswinder Singh Rajput wrote:
> > On Fri, 2009-02-06 at 14:21 +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > > On Fri, Feb 06, 2009 at 07:48:42PM +0530, Jaswinder Singh Rajput wrote:
> > > > diff --git a/include/linux/types.h b/include/linux/types.h
> > > > index 712ca53..c30973a 100644
> > > > --- a/include/linux/types.h
> > > > +++ b/include/linux/types.h
> > > > @@ -1,6 +1,7 @@
> > > >  #ifndef _LINUX_TYPES_H
> > > >  #define _LINUX_TYPES_H
> > > >  
> > > > +#ifndef __ASSEMBLY__
> > > >  #ifdef	__KERNEL__
> > > >  
> > > >  #define DECLARE_BITMAP(name,bits) \
> > > > @@ -212,5 +213,5 @@ struct ustat {
> > > >  };
> > > >  
> > > >  #endif	/* __KERNEL__ */
> > > > -
> > > > +#endif /*  __ASSEMBLY__ */
> > > >  #endif /* _LINUX_TYPES_H */
> > > 
> > > So no point including this file in assembly with this patch - the ifndef
> > > disables the entire file.
> > 
> > Truth Table of linux/types.h :
> > 
> > If Assembly then N
> > otherwise Y
> > 
> > what your table says.
> 
> If the entire file is not suitable for assembly, don't include the file
> in assembly files.  Nice and simple, and no need to add additional ifdefs.

Well types.h easily gets included in other files though, which might be 
partially suited for assembly - and have !__ASSEMBLY__ portions that rely on 
a types.h include.

So making this file an invariant in .S files does not sound like a bad idea 
to me. Is there any downside?

	Ingo