Hi David, On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 13:57:57 +0000 David Howells <dhowells@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Actually, it doesn't seem to be necessary. The header splitter managed to cope > without it and did the right thing. I think what happened was that the > splitter didn't recognise the _LINUX_PATCHKEY_H_INDIRECT thing as a reinclusion > guard, so it just tossed that into the UAPI header, then recognised the > _LINUX_PATCHKEY_H thing as the reinclusion guard and proceeded from there. > > Would you prefer that I remove that from the comments or would you prefer that > I leave things unchanged? Well, the comments should really reflect the patch, right? -- Cheers, Stephen Rothwell sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/
Attachment:
pgpP9YrxyxSA2.pgp
Description: PGP signature
