Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 7 Jan 2002 22:25:35 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 7 Jan 2002 22:25:15 -0500 Received: from dsl-213-023-038-159.arcor-ip.net ([213.23.38.159]:9742 "EHLO starship.berlin") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Mon, 7 Jan 2002 22:25:08 -0500 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII From: Daniel Phillips To: Jeff Garzik Subject: Re: PATCH 2.5.2.9: ext2 unbork fs.h (part 1/7) Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2002 04:28:53 +0100 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.3.2] Cc: Linux-Kernel list , Linus Torvalds , viro@math.psu.edu In-Reply-To: <20020107132121.241311F6A@gtf.org> <3C3A33E2.D297F570@mandrakesoft.com> In-Reply-To: <3C3A33E2.D297F570@mandrakesoft.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Message-Id: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On January 8, 2002 12:48 am, Jeff Garzik wrote: > > Moving the ext2 headers from include/linux to fs/ext2 is an interesting > > feature of your patch, though it isn't essential to the idea you're > > presenting. But is there a good reason why ext2_fs_i.h and ext2_fs_sb.h > > should remain separate from ext2_fs.h? It looks like gratuitous > > modularity to me. > > apparently userspace includes them, which is the reason for the strange > types. good reason to continue to keep them separate. That's also why > my patch7 adds an ifdef __KERNEL__. It's unnecessary for userspace to include those headers, they are kernel-private. -- Daniel - 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/