Re: [patch 1/2] own header file for struct page.

[Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com>]

> > In order to get of all these problems caused by macros it seems to
> > be a good idea to get rid of them and convert them to static inline
> > functions. Because of header file include order it's necessary to have a
> > seperate header file for the struct page definition.
> > 
> > Cc: Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@de.ibm.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com>
> > ---
> > 
> > Patches are against git tree as of today. Better ideas welcome of course.
> > 
> >  include/linux/mm.h   |   64 --------------------------------------------
> >  include/linux/page.h |   74 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >  2 files changed, 75 insertions(+), 63 deletions(-)
> 
> To avoid the explosion in number of small header files each containing a 
> single definition, it would be better to generally split between the 
> definitions and implementations, so IMO mm_types.h with all the structures 
> and defines from mm.h would be better.

That could be done, but I wouldn't know where to start and where to end.
Moving simply all definitions to mm_types.h doesn't seem to be a good
solution. E.g. having something like "struct shrinker" in mm_types.h
seems to be rather pointless IMHO.
Maybe we can simply leave it by just taking the struct page definition
out for now?

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>