2003-03-11 21:06:26

by Matthew Wilcox

Subject: Please revert second addition of stddef.h to list.h

I read these things on the web so I dunno how to specify a BK command
to do what needs to be done, but this cset:

http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v2.5/testing/cset/cset-1.1137.txt

is obviously wrong.

diff -Nru a/include/linux/list.h b/include/linux/list.h
--- a/include/linux/list.h Tue Mar 11 11:08:20 2003
+++ b/include/linux/list.h Tue Mar 11 11:08:20 2003
@@ -3,6 +3,7 @@

#ifdef __KERNEL__

+#include <linux/stddef.h>
#include <linux/prefetch.h>
#include <linux/stddef.h>
#include <asm/system.h>


--
"It's not Hollywood. War is real, war is primarily not about defeat or
victory, it is about death. I've seen thousands and thousands of dead bodies.
Do you think I want to have an academic debate on this subject?" -- Robert Fisk

2003-03-15 15:00:09

by Greg Ungerer

Subject: Re: Please revert second addition of stddef.h to list.h

Hi Mathew,

Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> I read these things on the web so I dunno how to specify a BK command
> to do what needs to be done, but this cset:
>
> http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v2.5/testing/cset/cset-1.1137.txt
>
> is obviously wrong.

Yes, although the original patch itself was correct.
Obviously 2 patch sets that are trying to do the same
thing have been applied post 2.5.64.

Patch below would fix this...

Regards
Greg



--- linux-2.5.64-bk8/include/linux/list.h.org Sat Mar 15 22:45:47 2003
+++ linux-2.5.64-bk8/include/linux/list.h Sat Mar 15 22:45:53 2003
@@ -5,7 +5,6 @@

#include <linux/stddef.h>
#include <linux/prefetch.h>
-#include <linux/stddef.h>
#include <asm/system.h>

/*

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Ungerer -- Chief Software Wizard EMAIL: [email protected]
SnapGear Pty Ltd PHONE: +61 7 3435 2888
825 Stanley St, FAX: +61 7 3891 3630
Woolloongabba, QLD, 4102, Australia WEB: http://www.SnapGear.com

2003-03-15 17:54:41

by Matthew Wilcox

Subject: Re: Please revert second addition of stddef.h to list.h

On Sun, Mar 16, 2003 at 01:22:00AM +1000, Greg Ungerer wrote:
> Yes, although the original patch itself was correct.
> Obviously 2 patch sets that are trying to do the same
> thing have been applied post 2.5.64.
>
> Patch below would fix this...

Yes, but you're removing the wrong one. Keeping includes in alphabetical
order removes the possibility of this kind of fuck-up.

--
"It's not Hollywood. War is real, war is primarily not about defeat or
victory, it is about death. I've seen thousands and thousands of dead bodies.
Do you think I want to have an academic debate on this subject?" -- Robert Fisk