Re: missing #includes?

[Jörn Engel]

On Fri, 25 April 2003 23:51:19 -0700, Randy.Dunlap wrote:
> 
> I wrote a trivial bash script to check if <sourcefiles> #include
> <headerfile> when <symbol> is used.   Run it at top of kernel tree,
> like so:
> 
> $ check-header  STACK_MAGIC   linux/kernel.h
> error: linux/kernel.h not found in ./arch/h8300/kernel/traps.c
> 
> 
> What's the preferred thing to do here?  I would like to see explicit
> #includes when symbols are used.  Is that what others expect also?
> 
> However, it makes for quite a large list of missing includes.

As long as it doesn't change the kernel binary, I don't have a strong
opinion. Explicit #includes are nicer, but is it worth the trouble?
Do the implicit #includes hurt anywhere? I don't know.

Jörn

-- 
Those who come seeking peace without a treaty are plotting.
-- Sun Tzu