On Thu, Dec 28, 2006 at 09:58:17PM +0100, Tim Schmielau wrote: > On Thu, 28 Dec 2006, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > On Thu, 28 Dec 2006 21:27:40 +0100 (CET) > > Tim Schmielau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > After Al Viro (finally) succeeded in removing the sched.h #include in > > > module.h recently, it makes sense again to remove other superfluous > > > sched.h includes. > > > > Why are they "superfluous"? Because those compilation > > units pick up sched.h indirectly, via other includes? > > > > If so, is that a thing we want to do? > > No, there is nothing at all in these files that needs sched.h. I suppose > the includes are left over from times when more unrelated macros lived in > sched.h (fortunately much of that cruft got cleand up already).
Uh-huh. How much of build coverage have you got with it? Note that "doesn't use symbols defined in sched.h" != "can remove include of sched.h", which, in turn, is not the same as "removing it doesn't cause problems on a couple of configs I've tried on amd64". - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/