On Mon, 2011-06-27 at 18:49 +0200, Arend van Spriel wrote:
> > That's why I think it's safe to include linux/slab.h in bcma_private.h.
> > But if that's just my opinion, everybody think it's wrong idea, I'm OK with it.
>
> My rule of thumb is: Header file a.h may only include header b.h when
> a.h needs some definition from b.h. Convenience is never a good reason
> for nested includes.
Yeah, good rule. Consider if you have a.h, b.h and z.c, z.c needs b.h
but not a.h, and now b.h includes a.h ("for convenience") -- changing
a.h would needlessly recompile z.c. Now, changing slab.h will probably
recompile everything anyway, but still...
johannes
--
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
