Date: Fri, 05 May 2000 17:42:57 +0200 From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@critter.freebsd.dk> To: Paul Richards <paul@originative.co.uk> Cc: cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/alpha/alpha genassym.c machdep.c vm_machdep.csrc/sys/alpha/osf1 osf1_signal.c src/sys/alpha/tc esp.c tcds_dma.csrc/sys/cam cam_periph.c src/sys/cam/scsi scsi_cd.c scsi_da.cscsi_pass.c scsi_pt.c scsi_sa.c scsi_targ_bh.c scsi_target.c ... Message-ID: <1027.957541377@critter.freebsd.dk> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 05 May 2000 16:11:59 BST." <3912E4BF.A0FAA358@originative.co.uk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <3912E4BF.A0FAA358@originative.co.uk>, Paul Richards writes: >Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: >> > >> <sys/bio.h> is now a prerequisite for <sys/buf.h> but it shall >> not be made a nested include according to bdes teachings on the >> subject of nested includes. >> > >Is this documented somewhere? I'm aware of it but I forget the reasoning >behind it. > What is our position on #include <sys/ioccom.h> ? Should it only be > included from includes which define the ioctls, or should it not > be included in nested fashion at all ? " The rules should be that " headers which are included nested are precisely ones which give " implementation details that are not to be accessed directly, and " headers which are included nested shall not be included directly. " ioccom.h gives only implementation details (names beginning with _[_A-Z]). " " Bruce -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD coreteam member | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1027.957541377>