On 2019/7/31 20:54, Gao Xiang wrote: > > > On 2019/7/31 20:07, Chao Yu wrote: >> Hi Xiang, >> >> On 2019/7/31 15:08, Gao Xiang wrote: >>> Hi Chao, >>> >>> On 2019/7/31 15:03, Chao Yu wrote: >>>> On 2019/7/29 14:51, Gao Xiang wrote: >>>>> Because #include "internal.h" is included in xattr.h >>>> >>>> I think it would be better to remove "internal.h" in xattr.h, and include them >>>> both in .c file in where we need xattr definition. >>> >>> It seems that all xattr related source files needing internal.h, >>> and we need "EROFS_V(inode)", "struct erofs_sb_info", ... stuffs in xattr.h, >>> which is defined in internal.h... >> >> Since I checked f2fs', it looks it's okay to don't include internal.h for >> xattr.h, if .c needs xattr.h, we can just include interanl.h and xattr.h in the >> head of it, it's safe. > > I think xattr.h should be used independently (all dependencies of xattr.h should > be included in xattr.h, most of include files behave like that)... Maybe it is > not a good way to follow f2fs... Yes, I've confirmed it's fine to do this, let's go ahead. :) Thanks, > > Thanks, > Gao Xiang > >> >> Thanks, >> >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Gao Xiang >>> >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> >>> . >>> > . > _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
