From: Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@xxxxxxxxxx> Date: Thu, 26 May 2011 11:57:21 -0700 > On Thu, 26 May 2011 14:38:43 -0400 (EDT) David Miller wrote: > >> From: Joe Perches <joe@xxxxxxxxxxx> >> Date: Thu, 26 May 2011 08:31:06 -0700 >> >> > My suggestion would be to see about again adding >> > #include <linux/ratelimit.h> somehow >> > back to kernel.h which commit 3fff4c42bd0a removed >> > in 2009 because of the spinlock issues. >> > >> > Any suggestion on how best to fix it generically? >> >> I don't think we want spinlock_t's definition being sucked >> into kernel.h's dependency food chain. >> >> Even if desirable, I think it'd be quite a bit of surgery, >> too much to do at this stage. >> >> So for now how about we make the ratelimit warn interfaces be a true, >> instead of a pseudo, dependency on ratelimit.h by moving those >> definitions into ratelimit.h? > > Works for me. Thanks. > > Acked-by: Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@xxxxxxxxxx> Thanks for reviewing Randy, I've put this into net-2.6 and will push it out to Linus soon. -- 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
