[PATCH] remove unnecessary #includes from <linux/fs.h>
From: Jörn Engel (joern_at_wohnheim.fh-wedel.de)
Date: 10/02/03
- Previous message: Krzysztof Halasa: "Re: A new model for ports and kernel security?"
- Next in thread: Sam Ravnborg: "Re: [PATCH] remove unnecessary #includes from <linux/fs.h>"
- Reply: Sam Ravnborg: "Re: [PATCH] remove unnecessary #includes from <linux/fs.h>"
- Reply: Tim Schmielau: "Re: [PATCH] remove unnecessary #includes from <linux/fs.h>"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2003 18:16:39 +0200 To: Russell King <rmk@arm.linux.org.uk>, Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Sam Ravnborg <sam@ravnborg.org>
On Sun, 28 September 2003 22:00:01 +0200, Jörn Engel wrote:
> On Sun, 28 September 2003 20:42:24 +0100, Russell King wrote:
> >
> > and that will prevent the #include maze of 2.4, which resulted in
> > everything being rebuilt just because one header file was touched.
>
> Ok, how about this:
>
> for each header file {
> make header.o
> 1) if it doesn't build {
> print out a warning
> continue
> }
> for each #include line {
> remove the #include line
> make header.o
> 2) if it build {
> print out a warning
> }
> 3) if there are less than x gcc warnings {
> print out a warning
> }
> }
> }
You didn't comment on my suggestion, so I've done it manually once for
linux/fs.h and was shocked. It still passes my compile-standalone
test after removing 11! #include lines.
Another one was a false hit, because I compiled UP only, and some of
the remaining may be as well, but it looks like we recompile way too
much after changes to a random header.
Russell, can you comment this time, or should I shove the patch to
Linus and wait if anyone starts screaming?
Jörn
-- Sometimes, asking the right question is already the answer. -- Unknown --- linux-2.6.0-test5/include/linux/fs.h~include_prune 2003-10-02 18:07:20.000000000 +0200 +++ linux-2.6.0-test5/include/linux/fs.h 2003-10-02 18:09:41.000000000 +0200 @@ -6,20 +6,11 @@ * structures etc. */ -#include <linux/config.h> -#include <linux/linkage.h> -#include <linux/limits.h> -#include <linux/wait.h> -#include <linux/types.h> #include <linux/kdev_t.h> -#include <linux/ioctl.h> -#include <linux/list.h> #include <linux/dcache.h> #include <linux/stat.h> -#include <linux/cache.h> #include <linux/radix-tree.h> #include <linux/kobject.h> -#include <asm/atomic.h> struct iovec; struct nameidata; @@ -208,7 +199,6 @@ #ifdef __KERNEL__ #include <asm/semaphore.h> -#include <asm/byteorder.h> /* Used to be a macro which just called the function, now just a function */ extern void update_atime (struct inode *); @@ -1236,8 +1226,6 @@ extern int is_subdir(struct dentry *, struct dentry *); extern ino_t find_inode_number(struct dentry *, struct qstr *); -#include <linux/err.h> - /* needed for stackable file system support */ extern loff_t default_llseek(struct file *file, loff_t offset, int origin); - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- Previous message: Krzysztof Halasa: "Re: A new model for ports and kernel security?"
- Next in thread: Sam Ravnborg: "Re: [PATCH] remove unnecessary #includes from <linux/fs.h>"
- Reply: Sam Ravnborg: "Re: [PATCH] remove unnecessary #includes from <linux/fs.h>"
- Reply: Tim Schmielau: "Re: [PATCH] remove unnecessary #includes from <linux/fs.h>"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
