On Fri, 7 Nov 2008 11:12:38 -0500 Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > * Andrew Morton (akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx) wrote: > > On Fri, 7 Nov 2008 01:16:43 -0500 Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > Is there something we should be fixing in m68k? > > > > > > > > > > Yes, but I fear it's going to go deep into include hell :-( > > > > Oh, OK. I thought that the comment meant that m68k's on_each_cpu() > > behaves differently at runtime from other architectures (and wrongly). > > > > If it's just some compile-time #include snafu then that's far less > > of a concern. > > > > Should I simply remove this comment then ? > umm, it could perhaps be clarified - mention that it's needed for an include order problem. It's a bit odd. Surely by the time we've included these: +#include <linux/module.h> +#include <linux/init.h> +#include <linux/delay.h> +#include <linux/timer.h> +#include <linux/workqueue.h> +#include <linux/cpu.h> +#include <linux/timex.h> +#include <linux/bitops.h> +#include <linux/trace-clock.h> +#include <linux/smp.h> someone has already included sched.h, and the definition of _LINUX_SCHED_H will cause the later inclusion to not change anything? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arch" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
