2002-11-04 08:32:44

by Rusty Russell

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: [PATCH] Fix undeclared NULL in timer.h

Uncovered on a PPC compile: timer.h uses NULL, so needs stddef.h

diff -urpN --exclude TAGS -X /home/rusty/devel/kernel/kernel-patches/current-dontdiff --minimal .22822-2.5.45-bk-module-ppc.pre/include/linux/timer.h .22822-2.5.45-bk-module-ppc/include/linux/timer.h
--- .22822-2.5.45-bk-module-ppc.pre/include/linux/timer.h 2002-10-31 12:37:02.000000000 +1100
+++ .22822-2.5.45-bk-module-ppc/include/linux/timer.h 2002-11-04 18:28:53.000000000 +1100
@@ -3,6 +3,7 @@

#include <linux/config.h>
#include <linux/list.h>
+#include <linux/stddef.h>

struct tvec_t_base_s;


--
Anyone who quotes me in their sig is an idiot. -- Rusty Russell.


2002-11-04 11:39:10

by Denis Vlasenko

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix undeclared NULL in timer.h

On 4 November 2002 05:32, Rusty Russell wrote:
> Uncovered on a PPC compile: timer.h uses NULL, so needs stddef.h
>
> diff -urpN --exclude TAGS -X
> /home/rusty/devel/kernel/kernel-patches/current-dontdiff --minimal
> .22822-2.5.45-bk-module-ppc.pre/include/linux/timer.h
> .22822-2.5.45-bk-module-ppc/include/linux/timer.h ---
> .22822-2.5.45-bk-module-ppc.pre/include/linux/timer.h 2002-10-31
> 12:37:02.000000000 +1100 +++
> .22822-2.5.45-bk-module-ppc/include/linux/timer.h 2002-11-04
> 18:28:53.000000000 +1100 @@ -3,6 +3,7 @@
>
> #include <linux/config.h>
> #include <linux/list.h>
> +#include <linux/stddef.h>
>
> struct tvec_t_base_s;

The whole problem of #include forest going out of control
needs some clever solution or we will eternally chase missing
.h files
--
vda

2002-11-04 14:22:53

by Dave Jones

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix undeclared NULL in timer.h

On Mon, Nov 04, 2002 at 02:31:39PM -0200, Denis Vlasenko wrote:
> The whole problem of #include forest going out of control
> needs some clever solution or we will eternally chase missing
> .h files

Doing an untangle at this point is pretty much a waste of effort.
As we get closer to stabilising, we can regenerate the dependancy
graphs and see what looks out of place again.

Adding lots of #include's isn't an issue as long as those includes
aren't sucking in 200 others.

Dave

--
| Dave Jones. http://www.codemonkey.org.uk