Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261756AbVANWuf (ORCPT ); Fri, 14 Jan 2005 17:50:35 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261487AbVANWtT (ORCPT ); Fri, 14 Jan 2005 17:49:19 -0500 Received: from pfepb.post.tele.dk ([195.41.46.236]:35341 "EHLO pfepb.post.tele.dk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261416AbVANWr1 (ORCPT ); Fri, 14 Jan 2005 17:47:27 -0500 Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 23:48:05 +0100 From: Sam Ravnborg To: Karim Yaghmour Cc: Sam Ravnborg , Andrew Morton , linux-kernel , LTT-Dev Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/8 ] ltt for 2.6.10 : core headers Message-ID: <20050114224805.GA15192@mars.ravnborg.org> Mail-Followup-To: Karim Yaghmour , Sam Ravnborg , Andrew Morton , linux-kernel , LTT-Dev References: <41E76279.5020507@opersys.com> <20050114205507.GD8385@mars.ravnborg.org> <41E83F84.7080102@opersys.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <41E83F84.7080102@opersys.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 811 Lines: 19 > > Definitions used only internally by ltt shall stay in kernel/ > > > > This is generally agreed upon, but not yet common practice. > > Should there be a kernel/ltt-core.h or should I just put all required > definitions in kernel/ltt-core.c? The latter would result in a > cluttered C file, I think. Though there aren't any .h's in kernel/, > so I'm not sure what's the best way to proceed here. The general approach here is to use a local .h files if there is a considerable amount of definitions. For a smaller set including them in the .c file is fine. Sam - 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/