Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 05 Jul 2002 02:20:30 -0400 | From | Sandy Harris <> | Subject | Re: [patch,rfc] make depencies on header files explicit |
| |
Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > It seems to be quite common to assume that sched.h and all the other > > headers it drags in are available without declaration anyways. Since > > I aim at invalidating this assumption by removing all unneccessary > > includes, I have started to make dependencies on header files included > > by sched.h explicit. > > This is, again, just a small start, a patch covering the whole include/ > > subtree would be approximately 25 times as large. However, before I'll > > dig into this further, I'd like to make sure I haven't missed some > > implicit rules about which headers might be assumed available, or should > > be included by the importing .c file, or something like that. > > So any comments about this project are welcome. > > Let me encourage you! IMHO any source file (and here I include header > files) should include all the header files it depends on. This gives us > at least some chance of keeping the headers consistant with their usage.
I thought conventional wisdom was that header files should never #include other headers, and .c files should explicitly #include all headers they need.
Googling on "nested header" turns up several style guides that agree: http://www.cs.mcgill.ca/resourcepages/indian-hill.html http://www.doc.ic.ac.uk/lab/secondyear/cstyle/node5.html
and others that say it is controversial, can be done either way: http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/q10.7.html
Am I just off base in relation to kernel coding style? Or would getting rid of header file nesting be a useful objective. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |