Re: missing #includes?

[Randy.Dunlap]

On Sat, 26 Apr 2003 22:31:36 +0200 Jörn Engel <[e-mail]> wrote:

| 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.

I don't think that it changes the kernel binary (but I haven't tested
that).  Of course the files are being included already, since they
build and since these "missing #include files" are listed in build
files like "kernel/.panic.o.cmd".

Thanks,
--
~Randy