From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
To: "Robert P. J. Day" <rpjday@crashcourse.ca>
Subject: Re: best practices:  which "uaccess.h" should one include?
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 14:09:02 +0200
User-Agent: KMail/1.12.1 (Linux/2.6.31-10-generic; KDE/4.3.1; x86_64; ; )
Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
References: <alpine.LFD.2.00.0909220226080.10448@localhost>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LFD.2.00.0909220226080.10448@localhost>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <200909221409.02211.arnd@arndb.de>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1136
Lines: 25

On Tuesday 22 September 2009, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
>   philosophically, which is the "correct" uaccess.h header file to
> include in kernel code -- <linux/uaccess.h> or <asm/uaccess.h>?  the
> first explicitly includes the second so that's a safe choice but,
> generally, there's been a tendency to shift toward including the
> "linux" header files.  opinion?  there's quite a mixture under the
> drivers/ directory.

The preferred one is linux/uaccess.h, the same is true for many
headers that traditionally only existed in asm/.

There are some headers with explicit #warning or #error messages
when they are not included from linux/foo.h, e.g. spinlock_types.h,
bitops.h or rwsem.h.

Other headers include each other both ways, e.g. futex.h, which means
that you can use either one, though it might be good to move to
a common location if that doesn't cause too much churn.

	Arnd <><
--
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/