Re: [PATCH] x86: more header fixes
From: Vegard Nossum
Date: Tue Jul 22 2008 - 06:32:47 EST
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 4:22 PM, Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>> I'm not sure how we should proceed with this. On one hand, we could
>> just fix the issues as they come up and be done with it. On the other
>> hand, this was exactly the thing I wanted to avoid by automatic it. I
>> guess it can never be fully automated... The question is if there is
>> any danger of *silent* (read: runtime) breakage, which would be much
>> worse than compiler errors.
> dont worry, lets fix the above hideous hack first, then i can merge the
> guards fixes ontop of that fix. That's why we do testing, to catch the
> cases where assumptions fail. Your script is just fine - it beats having
> to edit 280+ files by hand ...
I've updated my script to also fix any rogue uses of header-guard names in
auxiliary files. I'm attaching the resulting patch.
It doesn't really _fix_ the hideous hack, it merely unbreaks it.
Patch #2 also fixes some left-over headers. They both apply on top of
(I guess it should be tested for a bit longer before going to linux-next,
just in case something else bad happens? I did a small test on x86_32 and
x86_64, and also verified that UML doesn't require any of the x86 header