On Sun, 2015-03-29 at 16:36 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > On Sun, Mar 29, 2015 at 05:03:36PM +0300, James Bottomley wrote: > > On Sun, 2015-03-29 at 15:42 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > Header moved from linux/pci_ids.h to uapi/linux/pci_ids.h, > > > use the new header directly so we can drop > > > the wrapper in include/linux/pci_ids.h. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > --- > > > drivers/scsi/qla1280.c | 2 +- > > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/scsi/qla1280.c b/drivers/scsi/qla1280.c > > > index c68a66e..b2ada21 100644 > > > --- a/drivers/scsi/qla1280.c > > > +++ b/drivers/scsi/qla1280.c > > > @@ -348,7 +348,7 @@ > > > #include <linux/pci.h> > > > #include <linux/proc_fs.h> > > > #include <linux/stat.h> > > > -#include <linux/pci_ids.h> > > > +#include <uapi/linux/pci_ids.h> > > > > This is bogus, isn't it? There's a -Iuapi somewhere in the kernel > > compile line so the original include is still valid. Zorro does this: > > zorro_ids.h is exclusively in uapi but the include is still > > > > #include <linux/zorro_ids.h> > > > > James > > > > > Hmm, that's true. I didn't know. A bunch of files pull in headers from uapi > explicitly, so I assumed it's a good idea. Do you think it's better to include > uapi files using short linux/<x>.h, or the full uapi/linux/<x>.h? Linux has a > mix of both. I prefer the short linux/<x>.h because it's then up to the build system where they come from (we use the same scheme for asm-generic). If we hard code uapi/linux/<x>.h they will be wrong again when we have a new API split. However, I'd say the rule I'd adhere to is that if nothing needs doing (i.e. whether they include linux/<x>.h or uapi/linux/<x>.h) then do nothing. It saves churning lots of files for no reason. James -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
