On Wed, 28 Feb 2007, Jiri Kosina wrote:
>
> I still think that creating a separate header file solely for purpose of
> having the large hid blacklist and all related defines separate from the
> actual implementation is needed. The pages and pages of blacklist just
> pollute the hid-core.c
On Wed, 28 Feb 2007 10:28:10 -0800 (PST) Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, 28 Feb 2007, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> >
> > In other words, there is *zero* excuse for that braindamage.
>
> To be clear:
>
> - in header files, we put "common definitions":
>
> * #defines
> * data
On Wed, 28 Feb 2007, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > But OK, I will leave it in there.
> No. You need to realize just WHY it was wrong. Not just an "But OK".
Yep, I totally agree that with the usbhid.h thing I really had a bad day,
it was braindamage without excuse, sorry.
I still think that
On Wed, 28 Feb 2007, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> In other words, there is *zero* excuse for that braindamage.
To be clear:
- in header files, we put "common definitions":
* #defines
* data structure declarations
* external function and data declarations
*
On Wed, 28 Feb 2007, Jiri Kosina wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Feb 2007, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> > 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
On Wed, 28 Feb 2007, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> 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.
The point was that noone else than
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
On Wed, 28 Feb 2007, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > The diffstat looks larger because the usbhid code is moved from
> > USB-specific directory to HID-specific directory
> No. The diffstat looks huge because you moved "hid_blacklist" into a
> header file, and that is a big enough change that git
On Wed, 28 Feb 2007, Jiri Kosina wrote:
>
> The diffstat looks larger because the usbhid code is moved from
> USB-specific directory to HID-specific directory
No. The diffstat looks huge because you moved "hid_blacklist" into a
header file, and that is a big enough change that git won't
Linus,
could you please pull from 'for-linus' branch of
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jikos/hid.git for-linus
or
master.kernel.org:/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jikos/hid.git for-linus
to receive updates for HID core layer and USB HID for 2.6.21-rc2. These
are
Linus,
could you please pull from 'for-linus' branch of
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jikos/hid.git for-linus
or
master.kernel.org:/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jikos/hid.git for-linus
to receive updates for HID core layer and USB HID for 2.6.21-rc2. These
are
On Wed, 28 Feb 2007, Jiri Kosina wrote:
The diffstat looks larger because the usbhid code is moved from
USB-specific directory to HID-specific directory
No. The diffstat looks huge because you moved hid_blacklist into a
header file, and that is a big enough change that git won't consider
On Wed, 28 Feb 2007, Linus Torvalds wrote:
The diffstat looks larger because the usbhid code is moved from
USB-specific directory to HID-specific directory
No. The diffstat looks huge because you moved hid_blacklist into a
header file, and that is a big enough change that git won't
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
On Wed, 28 Feb 2007, Linus Torvalds wrote:
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.
The point was that noone else than
On Wed, 28 Feb 2007, Jiri Kosina wrote:
On Wed, 28 Feb 2007, Linus Torvalds wrote:
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
On Wed, 28 Feb 2007, Linus Torvalds wrote:
In other words, there is *zero* excuse for that braindamage.
To be clear:
- in header files, we put common definitions:
* #defines
* data structure declarations
* external function and data declarations
* inline
On Wed, 28 Feb 2007, Linus Torvalds wrote:
But OK, I will leave it in there.
No. You need to realize just WHY it was wrong. Not just an But OK.
Yep, I totally agree that with the usbhid.h thing I really had a bad day,
it was braindamage without excuse, sorry.
I still think that creating a
On Wed, 28 Feb 2007 10:28:10 -0800 (PST) Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Wed, 28 Feb 2007, Linus Torvalds wrote:
In other words, there is *zero* excuse for that braindamage.
To be clear:
- in header files, we put common definitions:
* #defines
* data structure
On Wed, 28 Feb 2007, Jiri Kosina wrote:
I still think that creating a separate header file solely for purpose of
having the large hid blacklist and all related defines separate from the
actual implementation is needed. The pages and pages of blacklist just
pollute the hid-core.c
20 matches
Mail list logo
