On Thursday 12 March 2015 07:11:48 Takashi Iwai wrote:
> At Wed, 11 Mar 2015 10:46:29 +0100,
> Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> >
> > On Wednesday 11 March 2015 07:11:18 Takashi Iwai wrote:
> > > At Wed, 11 Mar 2015 03:22:04 +0200,
> > >
> > > Are there any other headers like that? If this is the only one, leave
> > > it as is. The only program that reads this are some alsa-tools ones
> > > and they have already own DECLARE_BITMAP() definition. Adding the
> > > extra definition here will even break the compilation out of sudden.
> >
> > I think it's a worthy goal to have the header files be compilable
> > standalone,
>
> In general yes, but this case is very minor issue:
> - the file in question is for a hardware device-specific data
> definition,
> - there are only two programs read this file, both can be built
> properly,
> - and the device and the programs are very old, modifying such need
> extra care.
Right, we should only do it if the goal is to have all uapi headers
includable standalone. For a particular header file there is very
little benefit as you say, but it would be useful if we can automatically
test for regressions with new or modified headers.
Arnd
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
