Hi George,
On 15 Dec 2014 19:14:53 -0500 "George Spelvin" wrote:
>
> Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > Please do *not* mix changes up like this. Split this out into a
> > separate patch, please (1 logical change per patch).
>
> Um... I thought I was doing that. More particularly, the task of
>
Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Please do *not* mix changes up like this. Split this out into a
> separate patch, please (1 logical change per patch).
Um... I thought I was doing that. More particularly, the task of
untangling header file dependencies eseemed sufficiently cohesive
that it could be
Hi George,
On Mon, 15 Dec 2014 14:26:15 +1030 Rusty Russell wrote:
>
> George Spelvin writes:
> > It's the only user of in kernel.h, so that reduces
> > the compile-time cost of #include
> >
> > Only one user has to change: . The
> > there is needed for one function prototype that passes
George Spelvin writes:
> It's the only user of in kernel.h, so that reduces
> the compile-time cost of #include
>
> Only one user has to change: . The
> there is needed for one function prototype that passes s16 parameters.
> My first reaction is to wonder if that can be gotten rid of, too.
>
It's the only user of in kernel.h, so that reduces
the compile-time cost of #include
Only one user has to change: . The
there is needed for one function prototype that passes s16 parameters.
My first reaction is to wonder if that can be gotten rid of, too.
Some other extraneous header files
5 matches
Mail list logo
