From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Sat, 9 Sep 2006 23:05:33 +0200 (CEST) From: Roman Zippel Subject: Re: [patch 1/2] own header file for struct page. In-Reply-To: <20060908111716.GA6913@osiris.boeblingen.de.ibm.com> Message-ID: References: <20060908111716.GA6913@osiris.boeblingen.de.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Heiko Carstens Cc: Andrew Morton , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Martin Schwidefsky List-ID: Hi, On Fri, 8 Sep 2006, Heiko Carstens wrote: > 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 > Signed-off-by: Heiko Carstens > --- > > 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. bye, Roman -- 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: email@kvack.org