On Wed, 2014-04-09 at 20:25 +0800, Zhao, Gang wrote: > On Wed, 2014-04-09 at 09:49:30 +0200, Johannes Berg wrote: > > I don't like those last four patches, I'd rather have more includes than > > rely on other headers including headers that we need - that could change > > after all. > > As I said in commit log, duplicate including could hide some warnings. Well, the commit logs for these patches didn't have any such information, but that's not really the point. Besides, what does "could hide some warnings" even mean? This isn't a meaningful thing, if you include the right headers then you should get what you need, and you should include the headers for what you need. > In theory, the possibility of change is equal, either it's a directly > included header or a indirectly included header, and it's more likely to > change to include more, not less. So the change may not cause any > problem. At the current point in time. If some of the headers that you rely on including something no longer does in the future because it no longer needs that, then you just broke everything. That's the point you seemingly didn't consider, and I think it's much better to include what you need rather than rely on somebody else doing it for you. The latter can even be architecture-specific. > In other way, the local directory header files may change more > frequently than the header files in include/ directory. Whether it's a > total win to apply the last four patches may be a question, but it's > just amusing to see that lots of lines can be deleted. :-) # of lines isn't a relevant metric though. If you were removing includes that we didn't need that's certainly a useful thing, but removing includes because they're indirectly already included is IMHO practically always bad. johannes -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
