On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 02:06:31PM +0530, Sachin Kamat wrote: > On 22 October 2013 11:44, Greg KH <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 07:23:11AM -0500, Felipe Balbi wrote: > >> Hi, > >> > >> On Sat, Oct 19, 2013 at 02:17:52PM -0700, Greg KH wrote: > >> > On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 01:55:02PM +0530, Sachin Kamat wrote: > >> > > 'of_match_ptr' is defined in linux/of.h. Include it explicitly to > >> > > avoid build breakage in the future. > >> > > >> > Why, what is going to happen in the "future"? > >> > > >> > Kernel development is almost always about the "now", who knows what is > >> > going to happen later. If you want to make a change that will require > >> > this type of file to be included, then do it, and fix things up. > >> > > >> > Otherwise I'm not going to take this series for things that are not a > >> > real problem/issue, sorry. > >> > >> What happened to the whole "no indirect includes" mentality ? > > > > That's nice to have, but as nothing is broken at the moment, why is that > > an issue here? > > Right, nothing is broken at the moment. This series is more of making > the code adhere > to better coding style (avoiding implicit includes). Kind of semantic fix :) The thing is that we have been biten in the past by indirect includes. Anytime someone decides to shuffle things around the tree needs some build fixes. Why even let that happen ? That'd just be another bad bisection point. -- balbi
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
