Re: linux/elf.h vs linux/module.h [was: 2.5-bk AT_GID clash]

[Rusty Russell]

In message <20021113111744.GA10014@gagarin> you write:
> On Wed, Nov 13, 2002 at 05:07:03AM +1100, Rusty Russell wrote:
> > In message <[e-mail]> you write:
> > > On Tue, 2002-11-12 at 11:16, Rusty Russell wrote:
> > > > This might be kOK too, but in practice I don't think much will be in
> > > > moduleloader.h: asm/module.h only really defines struct
> > > > mod_arch_specific, which is embedded in struct module, and struct
> > > > module needs to be exposed for those inlines...
> > > 
> > > But does everyone who wants to implement a module need to be exposed
> > > to all the details of the elf header?
> > 
> > Well, linux/module.h -> asm/module.h -> linux/elf.h.  Although if you
> > use #define instead of typedef you can break the last link.  Feel free
> > to send a patch to split it into moduleload.h or something, but I
> > think it'll look tiny.
> 
> At least for i386 there is no inclusion of elf.h from asm/module.h, and they
> are already defines.

I know, I wrote them.  But a header should include all the files
needed to use it, as a general rule.

I'm looking at the moduleloader.h patch, and I think it looks sane
(the archs need to #include it, too).

Cheers,
Rusty.
--
  Anyone who quotes me in their sig is an idiot. -- Rusty Russell.