Re: [GIT PULL] introduce export.h; reduce module.h usage

[Stephen Rothwell]

Hi Linus,

On Tue, 1 Nov 2011 16:59:53 -0700 Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 5:45 PM, Paul Gortmaker
> <paul.gortmaker@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > Please pull the below to get the module.h split content. ÂIt has been
> > tested on v3.1-rc6, soaked in linux-next, and re-tested again lots more
> > today after rebasing it to allow most of the linux-next finds to be
> > blended in, where they could not be on the original v3.1-rc6 baseline.
> 
> Does it bisect cleanly?
> 
> Quite frankly, for something fairly trivial like this where the upside
> is mainly "slightly faster compile" (and hey, perhaps cleaner source
> tree), the downsides needs to be minimized.  And just looking at the
> shortlog makes me go: this will be a bisection disaster - people will
> look for bugs, bisect will go into this series, and things won't
> compile.
> 
> But maybe it's ordered so that the actual module.h split comes last,
> exactly so that it would be safe and bisectable? I just don't know,
> and I'd like to know before I pull..

Well, from the commit comments, it looks like Paul has made some attempt
to make it bisectable (see e.g. commit de47725421ad ("include: replace
linux/module.h with "struct module" wherever possible") near the end).
And the actual split (even though it is right at the start) is not really
a problem becuase the new export.h is included in module.h anyway.  The
problems come when you remove module.h from a file or replace it with
export.h.

One the other hand, there are some commits near the end that are cleanrly
just fixing up problems caused by earlier commits.  They could probably
be included earlier in the series (most of them are trivial).

Anyway, Paul can speak for himself.
-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell                    sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/

Attachment: pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature