On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 10:47:47AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
quoted text
> 
> * Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@gmail.com> wrote:

quoted text
> > +struct kern_ipc_perm;

quoted text
> Please, not yet another forward declaration...
> 
> I believe this should be cleaned up properly, instead of sprinkling 
> the kernel with random placed forward declarations.

It's at the top of the file, there is no random placing going on.

quoted text
> In a cleanly structured piace of code there's rarely any need for 
> forward declarations like this. There's two basic header types 
> needed:
> 
>    foo_types.h       declares all the data types and constants
>                      [no complex inline functions]
> 
>    foo.h             externs, complex inlines
> 
> foo.h includes all foo_types.h and bar_types.h headers it needs.
> 
> The foo_types.h file includes all other bar_types.h headers it 
> depends on for its data type definitions.
> 
> foo_types.h never includes a bar.h file.

This can be viewed as bad precedent created by mm_types.h.

Look how many headers mm_types.h includes. It doesn't change much
if one includes mm.h or mm_types.h.

Look how many places includes spinlock_types.h

quoted text
> The end result will be a clean hieararchy of data types, separated 
> from methods. Complex inlines dont create the incestous 
> cross-dependency hell anymore and dont contaminate the foo_types.h 
> files.
> 
> Yes, this is quite a bit of work, but this has been done before for 
> several complex headers so it's possible to do it.

Forward declarations are currently well established.

Want to change rules? Fine, do it.
--
unsubscribe notice
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/