Re: share COMPATIBLE_IOCTL()s across architectures

[Andi Kleen]

On Thu, 2003-03-20 at 20:33, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
> 
> > > --- linux-test/include/linux/compat_ioctl.h	2003-03-20 00:08:12.000000000 +0100
> > > +++ linux/include/linux/compat_ioctl.h	2003-03-19 23:36:24.000000000 +0100
> > > @@ -0,0 +1,641 @@
> > > +/* List here explicitly which ioctl's are known to have
> > > + * compatible types passed or none at all...
> > > + */
> > > +/* Big T */
> > > +COMPATIBLE_IOCTL(TCGETA)
> > 
> > Shouldn't you put the include files needed for all that in there
> > too?
> 
> List of includes is *way* shorter than 600 lines of
> COMPATIBLE_IOCTL. I prefer to keep it simple for now.

I disagree. The big issue with the duplicated code is not how long it
is, but that it needs N changesets to fix something instead of one.
Typically a new ioctl also adds a new include.
If you keep the includes separated it'll have even more mainteance
overhead than before (you need N+1 commits to add the new ioctl)

-Andi