From: Tim Schmielau <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: John Levon <email@example.com>
Cc: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <firstname.lastname@example.org>,
Subject: Re: [PATCH] break out task_struct from sched.h
Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2002 23:00:21 +0200 (CEST) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.email@example.com> (raw)
On Sun, 29 Sep 2002, John Levon wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 29, 2002 at 09:50:48PM +0200, Tim Schmielau wrote:
> > This patch separates struct task_struct from <linux/sched.h> to
> > a new header <linux/task_struct.h>, so that dereferencing 'current'
> > doesn't require to #include <linux/sched.h> and all of the 138 files it
> > drags in.
> It seems a bit odd to me that you /only/ split out task_struct but none
> of the simple helpers (for_each_process(), task_lock,
> set_task_state etc.). I'd prefer a task.h personally, many of these can
> be placed without further burdening the include nest.
I had the vague hope that by separating type definitions only
some future cleanup might help us to cut down on the number of
headers included by task_struct.h (currently 60).
Introducing a full-blown task.h looks like killing sched.h completely
after suficcient cleanup, which might be a route worth going.
> It'd certainly be nice to see sched.h properly cleaned up at some point
> (request_irq() ??? d_path() ???)
Definitely. request_irq() and free_irq() look like candidates for
<linux/interrupt.h> or a new <linux/irq.h> (it was suggested to move the
old <linux/irq.h> to <asm-generic/hw_irq.h>).
Killing ~600 #include <linux/sched.h> lines however seemed enough for a
first round, so I left this for later iterations.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2002-09-29 20:55 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2002-09-29 19:50 [PATCH] break out task_struct from sched.h Tim Schmielau
2002-09-29 20:13 ` John Levon
2002-09-29 21:00 ` Tim Schmielau [this message]
2002-09-29 21:06 ` Robert Love
2002-09-29 22:17 ` Dave Jones
2002-09-29 22:23 ` Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
2002-09-30 7:34 ` Tim Schmielau
2002-09-30 12:17 ` Arnd Bergmann
2002-09-30 22:57 ` Tim Schmielau
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).