Re: [PATCH -next] bcma: main.c needs to include <linux/slab.h>
From: Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>
Date: 2011-06-27 16:57:36
Also in:
linux-wireless, lkml
Possibly related (same subject, not in this thread)
- 2011-06-28 · Re: [PATCH -next] bcma: main.c needs to include <linux/slab.h> · Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>
- 2011-06-28 · Re: [PATCH -next] bcma: main.c needs to include <linux/slab.h> · Rafał Miłecki <zajec5@gmail.com>
- 2011-06-27 · Re: [PATCH -next] bcma: main.c needs to include <linux/slab.h> · Arend van Spriel <hidden>
- 2011-06-27 · Re: [PATCH -next] bcma: main.c needs to include <linux/slab.h> · Rafał Miłecki <zajec5@gmail.com>
- 2011-06-27 · Re: [PATCH -next] bcma: main.c needs to include <linux/slab.h> · Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>
On Mon, 2011-06-27 at 18:49 +0200, Arend van Spriel wrote:
quoted
That's why I think it's safe to include linux/slab.h in bcma_private.h. But if that's just my opinion, everybody think it's wrong idea, I'm OK with it.My rule of thumb is: Header file a.h may only include header b.h when a.h needs some definition from b.h. Convenience is never a good reason for nested includes.
Yeah, good rule. Consider if you have a.h, b.h and z.c, z.c needs b.h
but not a.h, and now b.h includes a.h ("for convenience") -- changing
a.h would needlessly recompile z.c. Now, changing slab.h will probably
recompile everything anyway, but still...
johannes