On 13/04/15 14:13, David Vrabel wrote: > On 10/04/15 16:24, Andrew Cooper wrote: >> On 10/04/15 15:19, David Vrabel wrote: >>> asm/spinlock.h should not be included directly. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: David Vrabel <david.vra...@citrix.com> >> s/asm/xen/g instead of a straight delete? >> >> Otherwise you are relying on pulling in xen/spinlock.h implicitly. > None of these files declare a spinlock so getting the header implicitly > is correct, IMO.
In which case, good riddance. Acked-by: Andrew Cooper <andrew.coop...@citrix.com> _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
