At Thu, 12 Mar 2015 09:45:42 +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > On Thursday 12 March 2015 07:11:48 Takashi Iwai wrote: > > At Wed, 11 Mar 2015 10:46:29 +0100, > > Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > > > > > On Wednesday 11 March 2015 07:11:18 Takashi Iwai wrote: > > > > At Wed, 11 Mar 2015 03:22:04 +0200, > > > > > > > > Are there any other headers like that? If this is the only one, leave > > > > it as is. The only program that reads this are some alsa-tools ones > > > > and they have already own DECLARE_BITMAP() definition. Adding the > > > > extra definition here will even break the compilation out of sudden. > > > > > > I think it's a worthy goal to have the header files be compilable > > > standalone, > > > > In general yes, but this case is very minor issue: > > - the file in question is for a hardware device-specific data > > definition, > > - there are only two programs read this file, both can be built > > properly, > > - and the device and the programs are very old, modifying such need > > extra care. > > Right, we should only do it if the goal is to have all uapi headers > includable standalone. For a particular header file there is very > little benefit as you say, but it would be useful if we can automatically > test for regressions with new or modified headers. True. Yet another option would be just move this file back from include/uapi/sound to include/sound. Basically no user-space programs care about this file, as they have already a copy of old header fils in the package. But maybe defining __EMU10K1_DECLARE_BITMAP() would be the easiest solution, I suppose. thanks, Takashi -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-api" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
