* Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > thanks, applied. > > > > btw., people have been talking about reducing the include file mess > > for nearly a decade now, > > Some of us are actually doing it. ;-) sorry, this was really not meant to slight your contributions in this area in any way :-) I'm just judging by the spaghetti still hanging around in asm-x86/*.h, and the 'fun' we have with paravirt and its type dependencies - and the periodic messups we have with macros. (and many macros are not inlines due to ugly dependencies.) > > So include file dependency flattening patches would be more than > > welcome as well. > > Yup! Provided they're compile-tested sufficiently well. as long as it builds/boots on your box with a single convenient .config of yours, we can stick such patches into x86.git and work out all the build failures it might cause. > > (and unlike unification patches they have no expectation of being > > 100% perfect, so a natural ping-pong of fixes, until the changes are > > fully correct, would be natural.) > > That way you'll never clean anything especially during merge window. > ;-) hm, what do you mean? Ingo _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
