On Fri, Jul 02, 2010 at 03:33:52PM -0400, Chris Metcalf wrote: > On 7/2/2010 3:19 PM, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > > Why a new header file instead of linux/types.h? > > I was working from analogy to kvm_types.h, mm_types.h, rwlock_types.h, > spinlock_types.h. My impression is that linux/types.h is generally for > basic (non-struct) types, with atomic_t/atomic64_t being added as > "almost non-struct types", and of course the historical exception of > "struct ustat", which has been there since the dawn of time (0.97 anyway). I think list_head, hlist_head and hlist_node qualify as "almost non-struct types", don't you? :-) I wouldn't mind seeing kvm_types.h, rwlock_types.h and spinlock_types.h merged into types.h, personally. They're all pretty fundamental kernel kind of types. It's a matter of taste, and I'm not particularly fussed one way or the other. mm_types.h is complex and full of mm-specific information, so keeping it separate makes sense to me. I just object to the unnecessary creation of tiny files like this. Which is how we ended up with atomic_t and atomic64_t in there in the first place :-) -- Matthew Wilcox Intel Open Source Technology Centre "Bill, look, we understand that you're interested in selling us this operating system, but compare it to ours. We can't possibly take such a retrograde step." -- 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