W dniu 27 czerwca 2011 16:53 użytkownik Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> napisał: > 2011/6/27 Rafał Miłecki <zajec5@xxxxxxxxx>: >> 2011/6/27 Pavel Roskin <proski@xxxxxxx>: >>> On 06/27/2011 10:24 AM, Alexey Dobriyan wrote: >>>> 2011/6/27 Rafał Miłecki<zajec5@xxxxxxxxx>: >>>>> 2011/6/26 Geert Uytterhoeven<geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: >>>>>> >>>>>> m68k allmodconfig: >>>>>> >>>>>> drivers/bcma/main.c: In function ‘bcma_release_core_dev’: >>>>>> drivers/bcma/main.c:68: error: implicit declaration of function ‘kfree’ >>>>> >>>>> We already include slab.h in: >>>>> host_pci.c >>>>> scan.c >>>>> sprom.c >>>>> >>>>> Maybe we can just include this in bcma.h as a better solution? >>>> >>>> It isn't better solution. >>>> It results in situation where unnecessary inclusion will be done. >>>> Maybe it's not the case now, but it will be in future. >>> >>> I agree. kfree() is used in main.c, not in bcma.h. There is no need for >>> all files that include bcma.h to include linux/slab.h, especially (but not >>> only) because bcma.h is not a private header. >> >> You ignore the fact I clarified my idea to use bcma_private.h instead of bcma.h. > > One day A Cleaner will remove it again, seeing bcma_private.h doesn't > use any slab > interface, and it still seems to compile on his platform of choice > (which implicitly > pulls in slab.h). > > If it's put in main.c, The Cleaner will notice main.c uses kfree(), > and won't touch it. A Cleaner should review all files that use bcma_private.h and notice kfree() ;) But as I said, I don't really argue. John, if that's OK for you, please take it. -- Rafał -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-next" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
